2004-10-29

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, an act to give effect to a land claims and self-government agreement among the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, to make related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to speak about honouring traditions and building prosperity. I rise in support of Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act. The legislation brings into effect an agreement that respects more than 1,000 years of history and lays the groundwork for Tlicho prosperity well into the future.
The history of the Tlicho is a story of a people who have met successive challenges thanks to a set of ancient principles handed down from generation to generation. These principles help the Tlicho decide when to act and when to react, when to drive change and when to adapt to it. By applying these principles, the Tlicho made wise decisions that allowed them to prosper in a modern world, while ensuring the survival of their people, their language and their culture.
These same principles inform the agreement at the heart of the legislation before us, an agreement that will have a positive impact on the quality of life in Tlicho communities because it is rooted in their rich history and honours the way they have lived for generations.
For centuries, the Tlicho were a nomadic people who occupied and used vast stretches of land in the Mackenzie River and Great Bear and Great Slave Lakes. Their ancestors tracked migrating herds of caribou, fished in waters according to age old patterns, trapped and hunted different species according to the seasons.
It should come as no surprise that the primary Tlicho principle is a respect for the natural environment, for the land, the flora and the fauna that thrive on it. It can be difficult for us to appreciate just how deeply the land resonates through the Tlicho culture. More than a source of sustenance, the land also provides spiritual guidance and shapes Tlicho language and art.
Respect for the land guided the Tlicho in their initial dealings with southerners. In 1921, as oil and gas exploration accelerated in the north, Chief Monfwi signed Treaty 11 on behalf of the Tlicho people, who were then known as the Dogrib. The chief traced the traditional lands of his people on a map and the boundaries he described are nearly identical to the ones included in the Tlicho agreement. In fact, when modern negotiators sought to finalize the boundaries for today's agreement, they turned to Tlicho elders for assistance. Their elders based their input on traditional knowledge of the routes travelled regularly by their ancestors.
The agreement at the heart of Bill C-14 will give Tlicho effective control over 39,000 square kilometres of land, almost 20% of their traditional territory. To ensure that the lands can be used in an effective, sustainable and equitable manner, the agreement enables the Tlicho to participate in several boards that will make resource management decisions in their area.
The second guiding principle at the heart of the Tlicho philosophy and the agreement is to act for the common good. Survival in a harsh environment of the north requires collaboration. The interests of the community are to be respected before those of the individual.
In the modern era, this principle has been evident in the Tlicho's approach to education and social services. The Tlicho moved swiftly and effectively to establish schools, for instance, when it became apparent that their traditional way of life was going to be threatened.
In the 1960s, the Tlicho recognized that a proposed pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley could have serious effects on their culture. The chief at the time was Jimmy Bruneau. He insisted that his people learn to blend northern and southern cultures and study the aboriginal and non-aboriginal traditions. This vision became known as a need to “be strong like two people”, a phrase that later became the mission statement for the Chief Jimmy Bruneau school.
The school opened in 1971 and it still teaches a curriculum that balances ideas from the north and the south, from aboriginal and non-aboriginal perspectives. Today, the Dogrib community services board, Canada's first aboriginal school board, operates five schools. An average of 20 students earn high school diplomas every year.
Modern Tlicho leaders believe that access to higher education is crucial to their people's ability to design and implement the policies that can ensure survival of their culture, their language and their traditions. As a result, the Tlicho invested heavily in post-secondary education. When impact benefit agreements were negotiated with mining companies, Diavik and BHP Billiton, the Tlicho insisted both include contributions to a scholarship fund. The Tlicho also intend to put sizable portion of payments they receive from the agreement toward this scholarship fund.
Today the fund supports more than 130 Tlicho who are pursuing post-secondary education. Once they graduate, these people will likely return to serve their communities as teachers, doctors and tradespeople. Their academic success will provide living proof of the Tlicho principles to the next generation.
The Tlicho principle of common good is the central theme of this legislation before us today. Effective self-government, for instance, enhances the Tlicho's ability to improve their communities. The Tlicho government will be able to enact laws to protect culture, language and deliver the social services and manage the resources.
Bill C-14 also incorporates two other Tlicho principles: recognition and representation. Each of the four Tlicho community governments established under the legislation will be run by a chief and a council comprised of a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 12 members. All will be democratically elected. At least half of each council must be comprised of Tlicho citizens. All community residents of legal age can qualify to vote for councillors, although only Tlicho citizens will be eligible to vote for the chief.
The constitution, already ratified by the Tlicho, outlines rules and responsibilities of government and protects the rights and freedoms of those who reside on Tlicho lands. Non-Tlicho citizens, for instance, may be appointed or elected to serve on Tlicho institutions. The constitution also ensures that the Tlicho government is politically and financially accountable to the citizens that it represents. All laws enacted by the Tlicho government are subject to legal challenges.
The final principle I would like to address involves respect for the people. The Tlicho believe that every resident must be accountable to contribute to the community in some way. This is part of the reason the Tlicho negotiators organized dozens of town hall meetings during the negotiations that led up to the agreement. They wanted to ensure that everyone had the opportunity to be heard.
Furthermore, to prepare people for success in the new economy, the Tlicho established a development corporation in 1978. Rather than focus exclusively on making a profit, the corporation's primary goal was to train and employ Tlicho people.
The wisdom of this approach is evident today. There are now two Tlicho holding companies operating several businesses in multiple economic sectors. A logistics company provides services to mining projects and a trucking firm transports goods across this vast region.
The Tlicho also own a local motel and a sporting goods store in Yellowknife. These businesses provide training opportunities and work experience, and give every Tlicho citizen a chance to contribute to their communities.
The Tlicho agreement is a modern expression of the age old principles that have enabled an ancient people to adapt and to change. This agreement has already earned the support of the Tlicho, of the territorial legislature in Yellowknife and now it is our turn in the House. I am convinced that a careful examination of Bill C-14 will lead my hon. colleagues to support it enthusiastically.
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we are dealing with Bill C-14, an act to give effect to a land claims and self-government agreement among the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, to make related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, or the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act.
We in the Bloc Québécois are in favour of this bill, as we were moreover of Bill C-31, which died on the Order Paper but has now returned as the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-14.
I have had the honour of meeting with representatives of the Tlicho nation, on October 6 and then again yesterday, along with the Bloc Québécois critic for Indian and northern affairs, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I would draw to hon. members' attention that this gentleman is the first aboriginal person from Quebec to sit in this Parliament. He was a negotiator for the aboriginal peoples for many years. I will not let his age slip. I dated myself yesterday, but I will not do the same to him. I will merely say he was an aboriginal negotiator for many years and is very familiar with the issues. As native elders pass down their wisdom to the younger members of their community, he is passing his knowledge on to me, and I am very grateful to him. It is a pleasure to work with him on this.
The Tlicho who met with us have, moreover, honoured him with the name Barbe blanche. I have not yet been given a name, nor do I yet have a white beard, but I am sure it will not be long until I do.
We also received a letter from grand chief Joe Rabesca on October 22 thanking us for the way the Bloc Québécois has backed his people's claims.
I will just provide some of the background of this bill. The Tlicho agreement comes out of the failure of negotiations with the Dene and Métis nations, a process that ended in 1990. Negotiations with the Tlicho nation resumed in 1994 and concluded in 2003 with the signing of the Tlicho agreement. In this field, patience is a must. The Tlicho have been patient, and I think their patience will soon be rewarded.
On June 26 and 27, 2003, the Tlicho voted 84% in favour of the agreement. It was not a close vote for a referendum, but I will say that we would have unquestioningly accepted the result even if it had been 50% plus 1.
Thus, the passage of Bill C-14 is the final step in recognizing the land claims and self-government of the Tlicho people.
With respect to the terms of the agreement, just to remind the House what it is about, the agreement will give the Tlicho the largest contiguous block of land belonging to a first nation in Canada and will set up new forms of self-government for the Tlicho. The agreement will clarify the rights, titles and obligations of the Tlicho nation. The agreement does not interfere—and this is important—with ancestral or treaty rights of other aboriginal groups. The Tlicho government will own a territory of almost 40,000 square kilometres and it will receive slightly more than $150 million over 14 years. It will have specific legislative jurisdiction over its land and over Tlicho citizens, including those not living on Tlicho land. The most important point in this bill is that the agreement gives the Tlicho nation the tools it needs to achieve financial self-sufficiency, to protect its way of life and to improve its economic growth and the well-being of the whole community. Those principles and values are very dear to us.
The Tlicho have been waiting for 14 months now, since the agreement was signed, for self-government. The Bloc Québécois is 100% in favour of the right to self-government for the aboriginal peoples, their right to govern themselves autonomously. The agreement before us is an excellent example of self-government.
Since it first arrived on the federal political scene, the Bloc Québécois has recognized aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples. We think that aboriginal peoples have a right to their languages, their cultures and their traditions.
Aboriginal peoples unquestionably have the right to decide how to develop their own identity. Therefore, we endorse most of the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission on aboriginal peoples. They called for an approach to the concept of self-government based on the recognition of aboriginal governments as a level of government with jurisdiction over governance and the welfare of their people. We feel that this agreement reflects this approach.
In Quebec, if I can make a comparison, we have long been advocating this type of agreement, in which mutual respect is paramount. As early as 1985, René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois government in office at the time recognized Quebec's aboriginal nations. The Quebec people recognizes that diversity is not a threat, but an asset.
In Quebec, the year 2002 was also a turning point in this regard. It was once again a sovereignist government—what a coincidence—the PQ government of Bernard Landry, which signed the peace of the braves agreement and the joint agreement. The peace of the braves was signed on February 7, 2002, by then Quebec premier Bernard Landry, and the Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, Ted Moses.
This historic 50-year agreement marks the beginning of a new era in relations between Quebec and the Cree. The agreement concerns the establishment of a new relationship between the two nations. It provides, I should point out, for greater empowerment for the Cree regarding their economic and community development and for hydro development projects in James Bay. It also provides for the harmonization of forest activities with traditional Cree activities.
What a fine example of nation to nation negotiations. Soon, a sovereign Quebec will also be negotiating nation to nation with Canada, and the earlier the better. During the last election campaign, the Bloc Québécois reminded the federal government that the peace of the braves agreement was the example to follow. The Cree nation deserves as much consideration as the Tlicho nation. The peace of the braves has demonstrated that major development projects have to be negotiated with mutual interests in mind. The Bloc Québécois supports the first nations in their fight for emancipation. That is why we are asking Ottawa to follow this example to negotiate a similar agreement with the Cree.
As for the joint agreement, in 2002, the Parti Québécois government of Bernard Landry signed with the Inuit of Nunavik a 25-year agreement to accelerate economic and community development in Northern Quebec. This joint agreement enables the Inuit to assume responsibilities in economic and community development formerly held by the Government of Quebec.
This agreement is opening up bright new horizons by accelerating hydro development in Nunavik, promoting more control for the Inuit over their economic and community development, simplifying and increasing the efficiency of the financing for the Kativik regional administration and northern villages, and providing funding for priority projects.
To conclude, there are two historic agreements, both signed by a sovereignist government. Those who believe that we, sovereignists, want to close borders do not know what we are about. Those who believe that we do not treat our minorities right do not know what we are about. A sovereign Quebec will work in partnership with other peoples.
I reiterate the Bloc Québécois' support for the principle of self-government for aboriginal peoples. This agreement actualizes the right of the Tlicho to govern themselves. I might add that the Tlicho nation clearly indicated its desire to self-govern, and we support this democratic desire.
Roger Valley: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently for a question but what I heard was a lot of praise for the work done by the government and the negotiators. A few points were made on how it took too long, but it was important to get it right. The government had to make sure the Tlicho people were satisfied with the agreement. I think it was incumbent upon us, as the government, to make sure everyone was heard. During my comments I explained some of the details.
I would like to take a minute to bring forward some of the many areas which I meant to do during my speech. This is a very comprehensive agreement and the areas I want to touch on are areas which many of us would not realize.
The Tlicho agreement contains 27 chapters and includes some of the following topics, among others, which will show how broad the negotiations were: enrolment, Tlicho government, Tlicho community governments, Tlicho lands, access to Tlicho lands, wild rice harvesting rights, wild rice harvesting management, land and water regulation, subsurface resources, mineral royalties, protected areas, heritage resources and economic measures. Those are just some of the many things that were looked after and everyone was in agreement.
I would point out to my hon. colleagues across the way that when the job is done right and everyone has patience and we make sure that we cover all our bases, we can get results, like 84% in a vote of confidence. The member mentioned that he would accept 50% plus one, but I believe most of Canada would like to see a rate of 84% or higher if there is going to be a decision made in Quebec.
I think they can learn from the Tlicho and learn to do things right. We can all live together. I think it is very good news for Canada.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, we are in a place where we talk about democracy. That is the link I wanted to make with the agreement being presented in this House.
In a future referendum in Quebec, I would like the result to be 84% in favour of Quebec's sovereignty. We are going to work very hard to achieve that.
I can assure my colleague that when this happens, we will be as direct and frank in our negotiations as the Tlicho were with the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the last member indicated that he thought the negotiations that were done with the Tlicho were great. However, the member from the Bloc talked about having its own sovereignty and dealing with the federal government, plus having borders for the Cree.
How are they going to all work together because we are dealing with several levels of government? What type of government is going to be set up with all of these little autonomies? Will we have a level of government that has the powers of the federal government? Will they be partners with provinces? Will they be municipal governments?
What vision does this member have for all of these different autonomies because I see very many right now, the Tlicho, the Cree and the separate Quebec borders?
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. Do I have a couple of hours to give her a course on Quebec sovereignty? I do not think so, unfortunately. It is no surprise that we are here. We have been here since 1993. In our speeches we often draw parallels with sovereignty in Quebec.
As far as how it would work is concerned, it is not so complicated considering this agreement was established on the same principle as the agreement with the Nisga'a. I know her party was against that agreement.
We agree completely with aboriginal self-government. We will not flip-flop on this, because of some alleged administrative problems. Quite the contrary, we know that, while Nisga'a agreement was not supported by her party, it is working quite well. In Quebec, the agreements with the Cree and the Inuit are also working quite well.
The federal government needs to look at these agreements and use them as examples. In the case of the peace of the braves, the problem still has not been resolved with the federal government. We are asking the federal government to draw on this agreement with the Tlicho and to do the same with the peace of the braves and the agreement with the Quebec Cree.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments.We would like to support the spirit of the agreement. Clearly, the Conservative Party agrees that the settlement for the Tlicho land claim should happen. Negotiation of any aboriginal self-government agreement is something we support.
The problem that I have with this agreement, and I would like to question the hon. member on a couple of points, is that it is poorly drafted. There are a number of inconsistencies and flaws in the agreement that should be addressed before we pass this legislation.
The agreement does not recognize Canada's official languages. The Tlicho constitution recognizes the official language of the Tlicho nation to be Tlicho and English, but it does not recognize Canada's other official language, French. I wonder what the hon. member for Richmond--Arthabaska would say with respect to that. Does he feel that this is something that should be included in the agreement or is he satisfied with the terms of language provision the agreement calls for?
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, we are of course going to look into what the hon. member says. Obviously, this may merely be a technicality that will have to be checked in committee.
At this point we are totally in agreement with the principle of this bill. This has been pointed out by the Bloc Québécois Indian and northern affairs critic. The Bloc has always been in agreement with the bill, even when it went by another name and died, unfortunately, on the Order Paper during the last session.
We are going to look into what the hon. member has said. There is nothing to prevent certain amendments from being made in committee, as required. We will pay careful attention to the bill, while delaying its examination as little as possible.
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, that is one of many flaws that I believe is contained in this agreement.
One of the larger problems with this agreement and the way it is drafted right now is the fact that there is no finality to this agreement. Chapter 27.6.1 provides that the Tlicho will receive equivalent benefits to those granted in the future to any other aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories, whether by land claims agreement, self-government agreements, taxpayer exemptions, et cetera.
This agreement is not a final agreement at all. One of the basic premises of any agreement is finality. This agreement, in the way it is currently drafted, does not call for finality to be enacted. This agreement could be reopened for future negotiations. I do not believe that is what we want to see in any agreement of this sort.
We want to see a document and a piece of legislation that is properly crafted and properly worded so that all partners in this assembly can agree, or at least agree to disagree, on the wording. The biggest problem I have is that there is no finality to this agreement. It cannot be a proper piece of legislation unless there is a finality contained in the language of this document.
I would ask questions of both the hon. members who have just spoken. What would they do to ensure--
The Speaker: The hon. member is only able to direct his question to the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
That member now has an opportunity to give a brief reply.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond on behalf of my colleague, of course. The hon. member has submitted a long list of problems he feels are in the agreement. All I can say is that he is entitled to his opinion, but I do not share it.
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.
It is a special honour for me to rise today and encourage my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act. The act would make possible boundless improvements in the lives of the Tlicho people. It would serve throughout Canada and around the world as an example of visionary advancement of the principles of ethical fairness, social encouragement, and legislative support for aboriginal communities. Moreover, it would most assuredly have a positive and sustained effect on Canada's economy as a whole.
In the modern age, the keys to the long term business success of a corporation and the keys to economic prosperity of a whole society are in many ways similar. The requisites are creativity, honesty, hard work, persistence, and now above all else, effective partnerships.
Buyers need sellers, retailers need wholesalers, distributors need manufacturers, and producers need suppliers of raw materials. In the development of social economic structures the pattern of interdependence is the same. Communities need support, individuals need encouragement, leaders need wise counsel and organizations need allies.
Before any of this can happen local communities need the full understanding and support of provincial and territorial authorities. All levels of government need the clarity of well considered legislation from which they can seek, build and sustain the partnerships that will lead to prosperity.
In my opinion, Bill C-14 would provide the Tlicho people with the tools they need to establish new and effective partnerships. The Tlicho have already demonstrated a remarkable ability to negotiate mutually beneficial agreements with private companies. Consider for example the resourceful approach the Tlicho took to two of the diamond mining projects now underway in the Northwest Territories. Before the projects went ahead impact benefit agreements were completed that guaranteed valuable benefits for Tlicho communities. These agreements made with Diavik and BHP Billiton respectively have generated jobs for the Tlicho people, service contracts for Tlicho owned companies, and post-secondary scholarships for Tlicho youth.
The Tlicho have recognized that most mines are productive only for a finite period and that once this time elapses many of the well negotiated jobs and contracts will then dry up. To maximize the potential long term benefits associated with diamond mines on their traditional territory, the Tlicho people sought the help of a business partner. Several years ago the Tlicho began an association with ATCO Frontec, a logistics firm that follows a unique and successful business model based on collaboration with aboriginal groups.
Beginning in the late 1980s, ATCO established a series of partnerships with aboriginal groups across the north. As an example, the Uqsuq Corporation, which stores and distributes fuel, is jointly owned with the Inuit Development Corporation of Nunavut.
The Inuit of Labrador are partners with ATCO in Torngait, a company that provides support services to a range of industries. In B.C., the Northwest Territories and Yukon, Northwest Tel operates and maintains microwave towers thanks to agreements ATCO has made with several aboriginal development corporations.
Each one of these partnerships with ATCO is based on a similar business model, one that stresses the building of capacity within aboriginal communities. While contacts may come and go, industrial and business capacity has an enduring market value that can be adapted to suit new opportunities.
This capacity based business model appealed to the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council which then partnered with ATCO Frontec to create Tli Cho Logistics. The business model is pretty simple. The Tlicho own 51% of Tli Cho Logistics and ATCO Frontec controls 49%. The company provides a range of services to the Diavik diamond mine and to the remediation project underway at the Colomac gold mine. Today more than 130 people work for Tli Cho Logistics, 50 of whom are members of the Dogrib Rae band.
When the company was founded five years ago ATCO handled nearly all the company's administrative and managerial work while the unskilled jobs went to the Tlicho people. During the past few years however ATCO has helped the Tlicho acquire the skills needed to manage and to administer that company.
This incremental transfer of technical skills is why the Tlicho were and continue to be keen to partner with companies like ATCO Frontec. Tlicho leaders recognize that management skills acquired on mining projects can be readily applied to other ventures as well. In other words, the Tlicho will be better able to initiate, to manage and to operate other projects as a result of experience gained from these diamond mines. This, my hon. colleagues, represents community capacity building in its purest form, and all Canadians stand to benefit from it and should be proud of it.
When Canadians want to do business they must make and seek investment. These days attracting investment is tricky. Investors everywhere have been burned. They look for security, for solidity and for mitigated risk. In short, they look now more for a secure return on investment rather than a large or perhaps uncertain quick return on investment. Managing risk is often now the act of avoiding it altogether.
Now look at the challenges facing the first nations, the Inuit, the Métis and northern communities attempting to attract the financing necessary to move a business ahead in their communities. These communities are often frozen in their progress by factors such as limited access to venture capital, a shortage of private sector partners and a lack of infrastructure. In this environment, what security can they offer investors? What factors must be addressed? What conditions must be changed to show investors that those who are in charge are ready, willing and able to make the kind of business decisions that generate results? This, I believe, is where Bill C-14 shines through.
Today land claims and self-government agreements are opening up the business environment by finally clarifying the ownership of resources. In the north, one of the world's greatest storehouses of natural resources, first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners play a major role in growing the local and Canadian economies.
With such certainty affirmed by law, aboriginal groups, such as the Tlicho, can move resolutely, creating businesses. Instead of going cap in hand to investors, they can say, “Something big is about to happen, are you in or are you out?”.
I believe many Canadians have not yet appreciated the tremendous impact that first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners will have on our national economy in the decades to come. Theirs is a community of communities where the population is rapidly growing, a sure sign of economic potential. The Conference Board of Canada has been warning Canadian corporations to “ignore the economic potential of aboriginal people at their own risk”.
With Bill C-14 we can give one group the certainty it needs to push ahead and to make its mark. This is a positive step in improving our nation's health. Our legislation must give people the tools they need to press ahead. The ability, the drive and the opportunity are there. With Bill C-14 and others like it, we can at last make sure that the certainty is there.
We have before us an opportunity to send a clear and powerful message to first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners across our country, that the Government of Canada is ready to remove the remaining barriers to economic development in aboriginal communities. I urge my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-14.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite made some very good points in terms of needing to have some certainty on a lot of these investment issues so that when companies do go in and make the large capital investments, they do have that certainty throughout a time period.
This week I was at the Energy Council dinner where they honoured Nellie Cournoyer from the north for all of her actions and what she has done to really bring prosperity to the north.
One of the questions I do want to ask my colleague is on the issue of jurisdiction. Which level of government has jurisdiction? One of the things we found in our reading of the legislation was that it is a little confusing over which jurisdiction is paramount. Is it the provincial government, the federal government, the agreement itself or Tlicho law?
Could the hon. member identify which level of government has paramountcy in terms of jurisdiction? Could he point to either the agreement or Bill C-14 legislation where it identifies which level of government is paramount.
Michael John Savage: Mr. Speaker, the area of economic certainty applies to many places in Canada. It certainly applies to the part of Canada where I live, which is Atlantic Canada, where we have had not as dramatic but similar lacks in terms of access to venture capital and to resources that they have had in the north.
One of the great benefits in the Northwest Territories with this treaty is that it provides certainty and clarity with the ownership and management of land and resources. That is very key. How does this treaty make it easier for the first nations people in northern Canada, and in particular the Tlicho nation, to take advantage of the great resources that lie beneath them? I think this provides a lot of clarity around that, provides certainty about the ownership and management of land and resources, and will create a much more predictable decision making environment so that people who are looking to make investments can be certain about their returns.
James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on this because I do not know if I was clear in my question.
If we take a look at, for instance, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, there is some disagreement now. The federal government is willing to go ahead but there is some disagreement with respect to the Deh Cho in the north. In terms of economic investment, the government needs to clarify.
Suppose there is a disagreement between either a provincial government and the federal government or between the Tlicho and this agreement, which would be paramount? Who, in the end, has the authority to make that decision?
To be honest, as I read the legislation and the treaty itself, I find them confusing. I do not find which level of government would be given paramountcy in these types of tough decisions. I would like the government member to highlight for us where in the agreement we can find which level of government would be paramount in issues of tough jurisdiction where one or more levels of government disagree.
Michael John Savage: Mr. Speaker, this agreement does state that Tlicho laws would be concurrent with federal and territorial legislation. However the Tlicho have agreed that any federal legislation would prevail over Tlicho laws. I assume that is the question the hon. member is asking. The agreement states, “There is no paramount authority over the federal Crown in relation to matters concerning the Tlicho”.
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-14, which I do support.
Many of my hon. colleagues had much to say about this and I will not restate their points, but I will talk about it in the context of first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners identity, self-sufficiency and treatment within Confederation. In my opinion the bill is more than appropriate and timely. It is absolutely essential.
Bill C-14 would enable the Tlicho to affect their environment and the changes in a better way because they are most familiar with their local conditions. At long last the Tlicho will be guaranteed representation on land, water and renewable resource boards and within community governments. They will have control over the land and resource management, aboriginal language and culture.
By exercising their inherent rights, the Tlicho will have the power to assume control over their resources once and for all. They gain the right to grant interests and licences and they gain the freedom to establish partnerships and conduct business according to their needs, while at the same time respecting interests that already exist. I think that is an essential point to the good question that was posed by the opposition that this bill respects the interests of groups that are already there.
The Tlicho have ably demonstrated that they can manage their affairs responsibly and, indeed, profitably. I urge hon. members here today to remember that the Tlicho are one of the most prosperous aboriginal communities in the north. They have proven to be both forward thinking and industrious. They constructed and now run an airport, take a lead role in the management of their schools and have built and operated both senior centres and a long term care facility.
They have proven to be able and fair negotiators, and have successfully negotiated delivery agreements on a number of matters and, in particular, in working with the Northwest Territories. They have signed a number of mutually beneficial agreements with private sector firms, chief among them the far reaching impact that the Ekati Diamond Mine deal has struck.
The Tlicho have long experience in devising and supporting fruitful partnerships and alliances, partly due to their sharing nature and partly because of their world view. They and their society understand that long term health and prosperity lies directly with their ability to cooperate with those around them.
In the private sector their agreements have resulted in a wealth of economic and social benefits, including jobs and training opportunities. The resulting economic activity in Tlicho communities supports a wide range of social services. Indeed, when we consider this agreement, it springs from a group of communities working together in the spirit of collaboration. It is no surprise that Bill C-14 itself is the result of extensive and fruitful collaboration by many groups.
I am aware, though, that sometimes the results of public consultation have been criticized and overstated. In fact, we all know that sometimes consultation and collaboration have been far less than successful and merely an exercise of having a lot of meetings. However that was not the case in this set of negotiations that have resulted in Bill C-14.
The consultation process, in short, was exemplary. First, it was conducted as the combined efforts of the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada. This coherent tripartite approach ensured proper representation of all three levels of government from the beginning and, by unanimous agreement, the process was refined so that we have the formal agreement we have now.
Open house sessions were held in four Tlicho communities, as well as Yellowknife, and feedback was listened to and incorporated. What is important is that the public at large was informed about this process and had opportunities to have input all the way along.
In the summer of 2002, when the Government of Canada announced the withdrawal of 39,000 square kilometres of land that would eventually become Tlicho land, widespread public consultation occurred again with interest groups and representations from all three governments were brought to bear.
Another public information session occurred in September of that year when it was decided that further consultations were necessary to ensure that the public was completely informed and had ample time to discuss and respond to all these proposals. The chief negotiators had set up a three month information exchange period with interest groups so that questions would be asked and answers would be forthcoming.
It is worth noting that during these exchange periods, tangential discussions between the Tlicho and the Akaitcho Treaty 8 Dene gained considerable momentum. To their credit, the Tlicho were diligent negotiators. During these information exchange periods, in which the Tlicho agreement was hammered out, it was refined in a number of areas as a result of these negotiations so that by March 2003 the ratification process was formerly commenced.
This is a remarkable achievement of public consultation. It makes clear the intention of the local aboriginal people to be heard and respected. High public turnouts attested to this fact. Moreover, wide public consultation occurred throughout this process. People throughout the north had their views heard, respected and incorporated. That was been important. Some concerns had been expressed by members about the process.
The Tlicho are clearly ready to fulfill their obligation. They have been working toward this agreement for more than decade. They have staged hundreds of consultation sessions and have secured the support of a range of public and private sector groups. Now the Tlicho are ready to establish and maintain a democratic government. This is very important. I think it will address a number of the questions that will come from the opposition.
The Tlicho are ready to establish and maintain a democratic government within the constitutional framework of Canada. Their government will respect Canadian law, fully recognizing that the Tlicho, as are Canadians everywhere, will be subject to federal laws and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
My colleague on the other side asked a very legitimate question about the issue of who would be in control and which law would be of paramount importance. It is the laws of Canada. I can reference specifically within the agreement. Chapter 7 has very specific references as to which laws are paramount within the context of any conflicts that may occur between what is in the agreement for the Tlicho people and other levels of government. Article 7.7.2 explicitly states that the federal legislation will prevail over Tlicho legislation where there is any conflict. I hope this will answer the member's question specifically.
Many of us have had the opportunity to work with aboriginal people. We have seen what occurs in aboriginal communities. We have seen the devastation within some aboriginal communities, which has been wrought for such a long time. We have seen the pain, suffering, the social dislocations which have occurred and the terrible social parameters that occur with aboriginal people both on and off reserve.
Domestically, I know we are committed to change the historical problems that have occurred with aboriginal people and change the horrible social parameters in some communities, such as unemployment, substance abuse, the lack of skills training, fetal alcohol syndrome, dislocated communities, communities where they desperately need and want to work with non-aboriginal communities to ensure that together we can enjoy the fruits of our wonderful country.
We on this side are committed to doing this. I have no doubt that members on all sides want to work with aboriginal communities to change those parameters, to rectify those problems and ensure that aboriginal people will be able to teach us the strengths of their cultures and their communities. Together we will learn about each other and will enrich each other. Together we will have a stronger country. Together we are a stronger people. Together we are culturally enforced. Together we will improve the social welfare of the people and societies of which we are part. I know that we are committed to that goal.

Statements By Members
Women EntrepreneursHon. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, encouraging and supporting women's entrepreneurship is a key priority for the government. Today, on the first anniversary of the report of the Prime Minister's task force on women entrepreneurs, which I had the opportunity to chair, I am pleased to inform the House that this priority is indeed being realized.
In particular, I would draw the attention of the House to the event concluding in Ottawa today on “Sustaining the Momentum: An Economic Forum for Women Entrepreneurs”. This forum, co-sponsored by Industry Canada and the Eric Sprott School of Business at Carleton University, brings together leading thinkers in the public, private and academic sectors to consider ways to foster the development of women's entrepreneurship in Canada.
I hope all members of the House will join me in recognizing the importance of the contribution made by women entrepreneurs in advancing economic competitiveness and a high overall quality of life in communities throughout Canada.
Toward this end, the government looks forward to hearing and advancing considerations of the views and recommendations from this forum.
2004 Summer Olympic GamesMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to pay tribute to Olympic gymnast Melanie Banville. Melanie is 17 years old and hails from Long Sault in the riding I am proud to represent, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
Melanie was one of only two Canadians to reach the individual all round final in gymnastics at the summer Olympic Games in Athens. Only the top 24 women gymnasts in the world advanced to the all round final. This achievement is even more remarkable considering that it was Melanie's first summer Olympics and that she had just recovered from two shoulder injuries in two months that forced her to miss three weeks of training.
Long Sault is proud, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry is proud and Canada is proud of Melanie. I look forward to following her promising career in gymnastics. I know her athletic performance and personal grace will represent Canada well at future Olympic Games.
Culinary OlympicsHon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to announce that a team of young chefs from Prince Edward Island has brought back a gold medal for Canada from the Culinary Olympics in Germany this week.
The team members study at the Atlantic Tourism and Hospitality Institute in Charlottetown. They were competing against more than 700 chefs from 31 countries in tests of culinary skills. The team is made up of students Kreg Graham, Rebecca Hutchings, Mark Sheehy, Gerald Sharpe, Tommy Archibald, Kelly Clark, Natalie Fortier, Gillian Gilfoy and team coach Hans Anderegg.
These students come from every region of the country and have been achieving world class results as they compete in culinary events around Canada and in Europe.
Please join me in congratulating the members of team Canada on their gold medal performance and for showcasing Prince Edward Island's culinary institute on the global stage.
École du Bois-JoliMr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently, the École du Bois-Joli, in Trois-Rivières-Ouest, lost its right to use its student radio for educational purposes, this for reasons that seemed mysterious. We looked into this seemingly unjustified measure and we took the necessary actions, so that the student radio could resume its activities.
I also want to mention the hard work done by the media, the students, the parents and the school management to settle this issue.
Now that students have regained the right to carry on their educational activities through the student radio, to the satisfaction of the whole community, I wish to thank all those involved in the resolution of this matter, and I also want to underline how much these people care about students.
Bell CanadaMr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the course of the past several months numerous constituents, myself included, have encountered issues with the service of Bell Canada. As one of Canada's largest providers of telecommunications services, it is imperative that the service be reliable and professional.
The introduction of what is termed “Bell Bundles” also introduced billing and service difficulties for customers. For instance, customers are not being billed the way they have requested or told they would be billed; exceedingly long waiting times for customer support services; harassing customers to take unnecessary services; and customer support representatives who are not informed regarding the other portions of the bundle services, ultimately resulting in frustration and very poor service for users of Bell.
Given the importance of telecommunication services in the country, I look forward to a quick resolution to this problem.
Liberal Party of CanadaTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, recently the revenue minister delivered what may be the ultimate statement in Liberal ethics. Asked why he ignored Treasury Board rules in appointing Gordon Feeney as chair of Canada Post, the minister replied that those were just suggestions and not regulations. All of a sudden, there is a lot of Liberal behaviour that is becoming quite clear.
The Prime Minister said he would not call an election until he got to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal. I guess he only suggested that possibility. The Prime Minister also vowed he would end cronyism. Again, it appears this was only a suggestion.
I have a suggestion for my Liberal colleagues. They should keep their resumés handy because after the next federal election, the voters will make the suggestion that they look for clear opportunities in the private sector.
Small Business WeekMr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take this opportunity to recognize the contribution of the people who received awards last week, as part of Small Business Week, in the Restigouche region.
First, I want to congratulate Irène Doyle, from the region of Campbellton, who received an award as an exceptional individual in the Restigouche. Needless to say, people like Mrs. Doyle are making a significant contribution to our communities.
Finally, I want to congratulate Alain and Adrien Arseneault, of the Adrien Arseneault sawmill, who received the 2004 entrepreneurship award for the Restigouche. Their business, in the Balmoral region, is making a great contribution to the economic development of the riding, and this award is well-deserved by these business people and their team.
La Société des fabricants régionaux du Saguenay—Lac-Saint-JeanMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the constituents of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to salute a dynamic network of entrepreneurs from my riding and my region.
La Société des fabricants régionaux du Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, known as SFR, is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year and has nearly 100 heads of manufacturing companies as members. The goal of the society is to promote goods made in the Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean region and it also develops strategies to face the challenge of globalization.
The Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean region is going through difficult economic times. And yet I believe the initiative of these businesspeople shows that we have dynamic human resources and that we believe in our abilities.
Congratulations to the SFR.
Health SciencesMr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently I was honoured to participate in the official opening of the Institute of Molecular Medicine and Health in its new home, the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery at McMaster University, an education institution that I was employed at for over 25 years.
The new institute for innovative research and gene therapeutics, under the stewardship of Dr. Jack Gauldie, is situated within one of the most advanced institutions of learning in Canada, indeed in the discipline of health sciences research worldwide.
The new centre will house one of the finest virology and immunology groups in Canada and will surely play a central role in positioning McMaster to take its place at the forefront of discovery.
Canadian ForcesMr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a very important event that will be happening in my constituency. November 13th will mark the official welcoming ceremonies of the 2nd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry to CFB Shiloh. Preparations have been taking place since the move was announced, and the 700 soldiers and their families moved in over this past summer.
The residents of Brandon--Souris have welcomed the Princess Pats with open arms, reaching out to them and making them feel at home in their new surroundings. Soldiers and their families have reciprocated by becoming active in and bringing a great deal of energy and enthusiasm to their new communities.
As member of Parliament for Brandon--Souris, I am very pleased to welcome these honourable men and women in uniform and their families to the riding. I look forward to meeting with them at the official welcoming ceremonies on November 13.
Coast GuardMr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Canadian Coast Guard on the addition of its new search and rescue cutter, Cape Chaillon to Thunder Bay harbour station at Keefer terminal.
The Canadian Coast Guard search and rescue program commitment to serve and protect lives in the maritime environment has search and rescue crews working out of Thunder Bay harbour from April until December each year, out in weather conditions most of us would only watch on television.
I would at this time also like to commend the good men and women who crew vessels like the Cape Chaillon for their bravery and skill, and recognize their contribution to the safety and well-being of all Canadians.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast to coast are very strong supporters of public broadcasting. Yet for years the Liberal Party has used the board of the CBC as a dumping ground for pals and payers to the party. Since 1936, 90% of the appointments to the CBC have been buddies of the governing party. What a dismal record.
The heritage committee has come forth with recommendations for setting up a transparent nomination procedure for CBC appointments. A new president is being appointed and Canadians are asking the government to turn over a new leaf.
Unfortunately it looks like the Liberals will be singing from the same old songbook and so the long list of Liberal appointments, anointments and reappointments will continue. We deserve better.
Stop using our institutions as a retirement home for political cronies.
HealthMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, many Manitobans want the government to take the initiative in providing preventive health care measures.
Recently I met with Mark McDonald and Ethel Hook, representatives of the Alliance for the Prevention of Chronic Disease. They presented an initiative outlining a five year pilot project which is built on a low cost, effective, community led approach that can be a model for preventive health care across the country.
The initiative will facilitate and support activities promoting physical activity, healthy nutrition and weight, and freedom from tobacco at the community level. A well-developed evaluation mechanism will demonstrate the effect of these activities, both for the individuals and communities involved in them.
Manitobans can no longer disregard the importance of primary prevention. Health care systems can no longer remain fixated on acute care.
I call on the members of the House to actively take steps to implement community based preventive health care, effective and broad based--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laval.
Quebec Coaches WeekMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will be attending and speaking at a luncheon conference hosted by the sports Laval regional organizing committee and the Laval regional recreation and sports unit, as part of Quebec coaches week. Michel Larouche, a diving coach and one of the spokespersons for the week, will also attend.
While we do need to recognize the important contribution coaches make in the development of sports in Quebec and the quality of their work with athletes of all levels, we need to recognize above all the chronic lack of funding to enable them to continue their extraordinary work with young people.
The government must develop a real sports policy and establish goals for achievement on the national and international scene.
The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, a former chair of the international mountain bike committee, joins with me in wishing all our coaches the opportunity to continue sharing their passion for sport with young people in conditions that meet their needs—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.
Marijuana Grow OperationsMrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week we had the spectacle of the government auctioning off confiscated marijuana grow op equipment at a discount so criminals could start up new grow ops cheaply.
Some criminals in Surrey are reporting their illegal gains as income on their tax returns. Across the border in Washington state the penalties for running a grow operation are three months in jail for a first offence. In B.C. operators are likely to receive a slap on the wrist, even after seven convictions.
Surrey currently has 4,500 grow ops. It is one of the biggest issues facing all police forces today.
The Liberal government needs to start taking the issue of marijuana grow ops seriously by implementing stiff minimum sentencing requirements and providing law enforcement agencies with the resources they need to make our streets safe.
I call on the Liberals to come to the aid of the citizens of Surrey rather than to the organized criminals.
Equalization PaymentsMichael John Savage: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has shown great leadership in bringing forward a new deal on equalization.
The provinces told us they wanted more stability in their payments and we listened. For this year we have guaranteed stability by ensuring that no province will receive less in equalization payments than was estimated at the time of the last federal budget.
The provinces told us they were concerned about the overall funding of equalization. This deal offers a floor of $10.9 billion by 2005-06, the highest level ever reached by the program. That amount will grow by 3.5% a year.
It is clear to see the deal announced by the Prime Minister on Tuesday will be instrumental in helping the equalization program to fulfill its constitutional obligation, ensuring that all Canadians, no matter which province they call home, can have access to high quality public services.
EmploymentMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, work permits are being given to foreign nationals when qualified Canadians are available.
In one alarming incident in Gold River, B.C., an employer was given permission to bypass local Canadians and bring in cheap labour from India to dismantle the local pulp mill. When he was asked why he did not use Canadians, he wrote “because the cost is too high”. On this basis a permit was granted and foreign nationals took work from Canadians.
On the other coast, Swiss nationals were given permits to come in and erect the new printing press at the Halifax Chronicle-Herald . In this case there were 80 local unemployed millwrights available as 15 foreign national millwrights erected the printing press.
I call it economic treason to deliberately give our jobs away to foreign nationals when qualified Canadians are available. We want this practice stopped. We want some assurance from the government that a better process will be followed before our jobs are given away.

Oral Question Period
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, evidence mounts day by day that the Prime Minister knew more about the sponsorship program than he is prepared to tell Canadians.
Today's revelations have nothing to do with the Gomery commission. Former cabinet colleague Alfonso Gagliano stated in a letter that the sponsorship strategy was approved by cabinet. He said that cabinet, including current members of the cabinet, designed, approved and supported the sponsorship program and strategy.
Is the Prime Minister and cabinet suffering from collective amnesia as Mr. Gagliano has said? How can the Prime Minister continue to maintain he knew nothing of the operations of the sponsorship program?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course the Government of Canada will always have a vigorous strategy to promote Canadian unity and the well-being of all Canadians. Was there a strategy to violate rules? Emphatically no.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, not everything Alfonso Gagliano says is necessarily to be believed, especially his harsh criticisms of the Liberal family. We can accept that the Prime Minister has made some major mistakes and suffers from amnesia, yes. That some current ministers supported the tactics of Chuck Guité, yes, but that Mr. Gagliano testified before the Gomery commission with any enthusiasm, not likely.
Will the Minister of the Environment be testifying before the Gomery commission with enthusiasm?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we all need to watch what we say in this House, particularly when our words are taking a certain tack, in order not to make insinuations.
That said, the Prime Minister has struck a commission of inquiry into this matter. We need to let it do its work, and to wait patiently if necessary for it to finish its work and make recommendations.
Natural ResourcesPeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, despite a week of intense negotiations, the Prime Minister has failed again to bring about an offshore agreement that lives up to his campaign commitment to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Premier Williams and Premier Hamm went home earlier this week empty-handed. However, they are prepared to fly back to Ottawa on a moment's notice to meet with the Prime Minister to resolve this important issue.
Can the acting prime minister tell us today whether a meeting has been arranged with the premiers to discuss the issue of offshore royalties? Will that agreement include no cap, no clawbacks, and no limitations on time or money?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister reported earlier this week, there have been conversations between himself and both of those premiers. I have had the opportunity to speak to the minister from Nova Scotia.
The discussion is continuing. It is a very constructive effort aimed at getting a solution that will work very well for Nova Scotia and very well for Newfoundland and Labrador in the best interests of the country. We continue on a very good faith basis.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first the Minister of Natural Resources went to Newfoundland and Labrador and told it to take it or leave the deal that the Prime Minister promised. Then the Prime Minister's spokesperson, Scott Reid, basically called Premier Williams a liar and tried to blackmail us into the future. Now the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell has said that our issue is unimportant.
Does the Prime Minister agree with his minions, or will he deliver the deal as promised?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the remark by the communications officer that the hon. gentleman referred to has already been apologized for as was appropriate. Second, in terms of the work that we are undertaking, we are all very anxious to get a solution to this issue because it is not only important to Newfoundland and Labrador and to Nova Scotia but it is exceedingly important to the country.
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I am glad it was the Minister of Finance who answered the questions because we might get some straight answers on this.
The Minister of Natural Resources has been saying he was given charge by the Prime Minister to do the deal. We know that is not true. He is not trusted anymore. The Prime Minister apparently does not know what was communicated to him.
I ask the Minister of Finance, is he in charge of the ship now? Is he going to be doing the pitching for the government? If he is, maybe we will get the deal we want.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has riveted the attention of the entire government. The Prime Minister is obviously in charge.
His ministers will work very hard on the mandate that we have been given to get a solution that works for Newfoundland, that works for Nova Scotia, and that works for Canada.The Minister of Natural Resources has been very much engaged in trying to get the very best result for his province.
Sponsorship ProgramMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the Prime Minister's exaggerated denials during the election campaign, the former Minister of Public Works has confirmed that all the ministers supported the strategy and method for making Canada more visible in Quebec, including current ministers, namely the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of the Environment.
In light of these revelations, will the Prime Minister finally admit that not only was he fully aware of the existence and operation of the sponsorship program, but instead of denouncing it, he took advantage of it?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the point has been made clear in the House many times. Were members of the government, members of the opposition, and all members of Parliament aware of the existence of a sponsorship program? Yes, indeed. Were we aware or did we authorize any violation of the rules? Emphatically, no.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, Alfonso Gagliano himself said: the first list of events to be sponsored was approved by the Treasury Board in 1996. We know who was vice-president of the Treasury Board at the time.
How can the Prime Minister still maintain that he knew nothing about the sponsorship program?
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has never denied knowing that the sponsorship program existed. All members in this House, including many of the hon. member's colleagues opposite, knew about the program. The issue is whether things were going badly with the program or whether it was being mismanaged. As soon as the Auditor General's report was tabled in this House, the Prime Minister called for a commission of inquiry to get to the bottom of this matter. That is what we are doing. We recommend that the hon. members opposite be a little patient and allow the commission to do its work and come to its own conclusions.
Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to my question, the Minister of Public Works assured us that his department is now guided by values such as openness, fairness and transparency.
Since he wants to be transparent, I have a very simple question for him. Where is the $620,000 logo?
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the issue of how the program was administered is now before the commission of inquiry. This commission has all the power to consult anyone it wants and all the documentation it has received. It will then draw its conclusions. It is important that we, in this House, give the commission time to do its job, however long it takes. When we receive the commission's conclusions and recommendations, we will take action.
Louise Thibault: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, department officials seem to be unable to locate the logo, this very expensive logo. May I venture a suggestion to the minister? Perhaps he should look around the shredder. He might have better luck.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, we note the member's suggestion. Still, I maintain that there is a commission of inquiry with the mandate and the power to conduct an in-depth investigation in this whole issue of the administration of the program. Let us give the commission a chance to do its job, to hear whomever it wants, and allow these people to testify. The commission will draw its conclusions and made recommendations, and we will take note of that too.
IndustryHon. Ed Broadbent (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
In today's Globe and Mail , Harry Wu, a leading expert on human rights in China, has revealed that Minmetals, as recently as the 1990s, was exporting metals produced by forced labour from that country.
Is the minister aware of this abominable practice, and if so, will he assure us that Minmetals will not be allowed to take over Noranda until its history is thoroughly investigated?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the story. I read the story myself.
In the event, and it is hypothetical at this stage, that we do get an application by Minmetals to take over Noranda, we will review it from all perspectives.
We will ensure that the interests of Canada are protected, short term and long term, and that Canada's record of protecting and promoting human rights remains unassailable.
Ed Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that since 1985 over 1,100 takeover bids have been allowed to go through without serious review, and considering that the foreign minister of China himself has announced his intention to take over much more of our resources, will the minister refer the Foreign Investment Review Act to the industry committee for examination and toughening?
Canadians are not abused at work in Canada and do not expect to be associated with the abuse of workers abroad.
David Emerson: Mr. Speaker, I have a hunch that the Foreign Investment Review Act was repealed in 1985 and the act the hon. member is referring to is the Investment Canada Act.
This is all hypothetical. There are an infinite number of hypothetical questions about who might take over whom in Canada.
We will undertake to ensure that reviews are comprehensive. If the industry committee or other parliamentarians have views, we would be very happy to include those views where they are helpful to the cause of Canadians on this file.
Natural ResourcesMr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's approach to dealing with Atlantic Canada is nothing short of insulting.
Yesterday the Prime Minister's communications director threatened Newfoundland and Labrador and implied that its premier was not telling the truth. When our former Prime Minister's communications director called the U.S. President a moron, our current Prime Minister's supporters demanded that she be fired.
When will the Prime Minister's communications director be fired for insulting and threatening Newfoundlanders?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, there was no insult and no threat intended toward Newfoundland, the people of Newfoundland or the Premier of Newfoundland. The remark was inappropriate. The remark was withdrawn and apologized for very promptly.
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if there was no insult, why was there an apology?
The Prime Minister's communications director is on the record insulting a sitting premier. Françoise Ducros' comments of this type resulted in her termination. The Prime Minister's own words at the time were that he found it hard to believe a senior official in the government would say such a thing.
All Canadians are embarrassed and will not tolerate inaction on this issue. Will the Prime Minister's communications director be fired today?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, what the Government of Canada is doing today, yesterday, tomorrow, through the weekend and next week is working very hard with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to arrive at a solution that works for them in terms of their offshore resources, so that together we can continue to build a stronger Canada.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in an open letter from Mr. Gagliano, which has nothing to do with the Gomery inquest but everything to do with the Prime Minister's knowledge of the sponsorship scandal, he said that all ministers supported the strategy and the direction of the sponsorship program, including members of cabinet.
When the Prime Minister was asked why he did nothing to address the problem while he was finance minister, he said he had no idea what was going on here.
The Prime Minister has continued to dodge questions from the opposition. Will he now respond to his own former cabinet colleague?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, once again let me make it very clear, and this has been said many times in the House, there was obviously knowledge on all sides of the House and by members of all parties about the existence of a sponsorship program.
Hon. members opposite say it was not true. Indeed, they made representations to the government to promote projects within the sponsorship program.
The issue here is, did members of Parliament know that there was a program? Yes. Did members of the government know that the rules of the program were being violated? No.
Mr. Jeremy Harrison (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on February 11, 2004, the Prime Minister told the Ottawa Sun , “I didn't know anything about it” in reference to the sponsorship program. Today we find out, from none other than Alfonso Gagliano, that the PM actually approved the sponsorship program in 1996.
Canadians deserve the truth. When will the PM come clean about what he knew and when he knew it?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. gentleman is drawing the wrong conclusion. The Prime Minister has clearly said that yes, members of the government, members of the opposition, and all members of Parliament knew that there was a sponsorship program. It was a public program of the Government of Canada.
Did members of the government, members of the opposition, and members of Parliament know that the rules of that program might have been violated? No. That is the salient point. That is what no one had knowledge of until the audits were made public.
Mirabel AirportMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 31, passenger flights will be transferred from Mirabel to Dorval. This operation, which was estimated to cost $185 million, according to ADM, is now up to $1.1 billion, and the meter is still running.
Now that the government has allowed passenger flights to be transferred to Dorval, can it at least partially correct the error by keeping all options open, for instance maintaining the facilities now at Mirabel in proper operating condition ?
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, we take note of my colleague's question. I will make sure that it is passed on to the Minister of Transport, who will be pleased to reply to the hon. member directly, and that will certainly be done in the coming week.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the minister, a promise was made to keep the charter flights at Mirabel, and now they have been transferred to Dorval.
In this context, can the minister guarantee that he is not preparing to also transfer cargo flights to Dorval?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the question. I will be in touch with the Minister of Transport, who will I am sure have the information requested.
Aerospace IndustryMr. Sébastien Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government has just announced that it will underwrite Air Canada's purchase of 45 regional jets built by Bombardier. However, the company is still waiting for the federal proposal that will enable it to design and manufacture its new generation of aircraft right here, rather than in the United States or the United Kingdom.
Since there are only a few weeks left before Bombardier announces its final decision on the manufacturing location for its newest aircraft, when is the government going to let us know what it proposes? There are thousands of jobs at stake.
David Emerson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the hon. member does support going forward, on an accelerated basis, with an aerospace strategy for all of Canada. This is more than just Bombardier. It is about a whole industry, a whole sector, and we intend to ensure that the aerospace sector remains one of the leading sectors in the Canadian economy.
Sébastien Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the government never stops saying how important the aerospace industry is. If it is so important, why is the government so reluctant to develop and make public a coherent policy of support for the entire aerospace industry?
David Emerson: Mr. Speaker, I am working with my ministerial counterparts in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, as well as the industry. We are working directly with Bombardier. We have not missed any deadlines. We will continue to ensure that we build a strong competitive aerospace industry in this country.
TaxationMr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency has threatened both Roman Catholic and evangelical churches with legal sanctions. Their mortal sin was freely and publicly expressing their positions on key moral issues. I find the government's actions outrageous. Our Constitution guarantees every citizen freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
I ask the minister, why is the government attacking our most cherished freedoms?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the question.
I would note that rules are in place to ensure that the money Canadians donate to charities is spent on charitable purposes. Charities are free to advocate points of view. There is nothing in the law to inhibit that unless the charity directly advocates for a political party. That is the rule of the land.
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bishop Henry and other church leaders have been highly critical of the Prime Minister's position on certain matters of conscience. Now the Prime Minister, through his tax collectors, is threatening to remove tax free status from Roman Catholic and evangelical organizations.
Why is the Prime Minister permitting government agencies to attack and threaten freedom of religion in Canada?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no truth in that statement. In general terms Canadians want to be sure that the money they donate to charities goes to the proper place. Churches and other registered charities are entirely free to put forward their opinion on many issues. The only thing they cannot do as a registered charity is advocate for a political party or a political candidate in an election. That is the law of the land.
Canada PostGuy Lauzon: Mr. Speaker, last spring the Treasury Board announced that henceforth the appointment process for heads of crown corporations would be cleaned up and objective rules would be followed. But old habits are hard to break. The next month, everything new was forgotten. The minister of revenue parachuted his friend, Gordon Feeney, into a position at the head of Canada Post.
Does the Prime Minister believe that all these political appointments will just slip through like so much mail?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report to the House that not only did the board of Canada Post judge Mr. Feeney to be competent, not only did the government make that judgment, but the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar in the meeting of the parliamentary committee with Mr. Feeney said, “My questions will not pertain to your qualifications,which are exemplary”.
The Bloc member, not to be outdone, said to Mr. Feeney:
“I do not want to question your qualifications, either.”
I am glad to note the opposition is with the government.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the appointment of the revenue minister's friend as chair of Canada Post is exactly the type of cronyism that the rules were supposed to prevent. Now that it is clear the rules have been watered down, it is obvious this was nothing more than a pre-election ploy designed to trick Canadians into thinking the Liberal government would clean up its act.
Will the Prime Minister instruct the President of the Treasury Board to enforce the original rules and apologize to Canadians for his deception to Canadians?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, it would appear the hon. member asked his question without taking account of the answer to the previous question. I would remind him that his own colleague, a member of the same party on the parliamentary committee said, “My questions will not pertain to your qualifications, which are exemplary”.
Exemplary is quite a strong word and it goes to show that Mr. Feeney is well positioned to lead the board of this major corporation, to improve governance and to find an exemplary new CEO.
Natural ResourcesMichael John Savage: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Following discussions a couple of days ago, Premier Hamm of my province said he was optimistic in regard to equalization talks and the possibility of reaching a deal with the federal government. Today the minister of energy in Nova Scotia was reported as saying that talks were positive and that he was satisfied with the progress made to date.
Could the minister give us an update on the status of discussions specifically with Nova Scotia on offshore revenues and equalization?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the remarks of Premier Hamm and Minister Clarke. They fairly reflect the rapport between Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada. We have been addressing serious issues in a serious way and trying to find real solutions that work.
We have also had the very helpful engagement of our national caucus. All of us want to get on with this and find the answers that will achieve the results in terms of future economic growth and development in Nova Scotia, which the province aspires to and that Canada supports.
IndustryCharlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the mayor of Timmins, Ontario joined the growing chorus of concern over the sale of base metal operations to Minmetals. He has written an open letter to the Prime Minister underlining the fact that there are communities completely dependent on these resources.
Instead of sitting back and waiting for this deal to be inked, will this government respond to the mayor's request, invite the base metal communities to come forward and bring their concerns in setting up a full review of this deal?
David Emerson: Mr. Speaker, in the event there is an application under the Investment Canada Act, there will be a full and complete review of any proposed deal.
HousingPat Martin: Mr. Speaker, zonolite is an asbestos laden vermiculite that the government promoted for use in its Canadian home insulation program. Now hundreds of thousands of Canadian homeowners are sitting on a ticking time bomb in terms of the health of their families. On some Indian reserves it is too late and at least four deaths have been tied directly to zonolite.
The government helped pay for the removal of urea formaldehyde foam insulation in the 1980s because it was irritating. This is deadly.
Will the minister responsible for housing and CMHC commit to establishing a program similar to the UFFI program to help homeowners pay for the high cost of removing this hazardous material from their homes?
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an issue of concern to the Government of Canada because the well-being of all Canadians is important.
I want to indicate that there is information available for Canadians to find out whether they have the zonolite to which the member referred. We have links to Health Canada as well as to other information sources. We want to ensure that we look at the situation as seriously as we possible can. We would be happy to report to the member and to the House when the information is available.
Natural ResourcesMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the province of Saskatchewan has been losing equalization payments in excess of $1.08 for every dollar of oil sold under the current equalization formula. The Prime Minister has promised that Newfoundland and Labrador will keep 100% of its offshore oil revenue, and maybe it is and maybe it is not.
Will the Minister of Finance, on the record in the House, promise not only to pay back to Saskatchewan all the excess clawed back under the equalization formula, but also ensure that the province of Saskatchewan will keep 100% of its oil revenues?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, first, I am very pleased to report to the hon. gentleman that because of the elimination of the clawback in fiscal 2004-05, which will provide a benefit to Saskatchewan of some $590 million, anything that was owed from a previous time has already been returned, as the province of Saskatchewan has acknowledged.
Indeed, Saskatchewan is on the cusp of becoming a have province within Confederation, and we are very proud of that in Saskatchewan.
AgricultureMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the ruminant livestock industry is in trouble and it continues to suffer due to BSE border closures. Over 100,000 ruminant producers need help now.
It is unbelievable that the government does not hesitate to insult our U.S. neighbours, but it lacks the backbone to negotiate with the U.S. government. The government has no plans to convince the Americans that the border has to be reopened to live animals right now and not later.
Will the government take a firm stand with the American government and proceed with legal action against the United States under NAFTA or WTO?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would probably come as a bit of a surprise to the U.S. ambassador whom I met yesterday that Canada is not advocating on a continual basis for the border to be opened. I think the point was made very clear to him.
In addition to that, as announced on September 10, the government felt it was absolutely essential that we develop made in Canada solutions so our producers could take into their own hands the types of business decisions that they needed to take.
All aspects of that program that were announced on September 10 are now in operation. We are working with the industry to ensure they can achieve profitability.
Textile and Clothing IndustryMr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Canadian apparel industry faces challenges due to globalization. The fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in the 37th Parliament made three unanimous recommendations. One was to extend the remission orders related to the apparel sector that would expire on December 31 of this year.
Without these in place, jobs will be lost including in my riding of Leeds--Grenville. When will the finance minister extend these remissions orders?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to report that members of Parliament, including most particularly members on this side of the House, have been very aggressive in advancing their point of view.
The recommendations of the committee are under active consideration. I am pleased to say that in the company of our members of Parliament I was able to meet with a number of representatives yesterday about the textile and apparel industry. We want to achieve a result that works for it, and it is very much on the government's agenda right now.
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I also met with those very gentlemen yesterday and that is not the attitude they shared with me.
This House has 150 days to respond to an all party recommendation. The industry has only 60 days until extinction.
We need assurance from the minister that he will take direct and immediate action to implement this number one recommendation and ensure that not only Cambridge jobs, but jobs all across Canada will not be lost because of bureaucracy and paper shuffling.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the hon. gentleman's representation. I will add it to the list that I have received directly from the industry and from members of Parliament.
I am pleased to report that members of the government caucus raised this with me two months ago.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, various police associations in Quebec have also expressed concern about the RCMP's decision to close nine regional offices in Quebec and demand that an impact study be conducted before the decision becomes final.
Does the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness intend to do as requested by the police associations, and suspend temporarily the RCMP's decision while impact studies are conducted?
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I want to say that this is a purely operational decision of the RCMP, following a comprehensive review of its services in Quebec. This review entailed extensive internal consultations with its employees and external consultations with its law enforcement partners, including the Quebec provincial police.
This same review was done in the province of Ontario just a few years ago. It was implemented, it is working and it is making a safer Ontario--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, this is more a matter calling for a comprehensive review by elected representatives. The same mistake was made in the past with the ports of Montreal.
To prevent another mistake, does the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness not think that a moratorium would be in order, while the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness examines this decision and assesses its various impacts?
Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think that the decision is in the best interests of the citizens of Quebec and Canada. There will be no workforce reduction within the RCMP in Quebec. Resources will be redeployed to increase operational efficiency and meet strategic federal policing objectives, namely fighting organized crime and terrorism.
This is a consolidation of resources. It will make it more effective in the fight against organized crime and terrorism. It is supported by the stakeholders.
HealthMr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my constituent, Alan Blumenfeld, got hepatitis C in 1981 through government controlled tainted blood and he still suffers today. The Liberals misled Parliament and hugely inflated compensation estimates. The Red Cross and Health Canada had warnings about the virus but chose to do nothing.
The billion dollar government compensation fund is just sitting and earning over $100 million in interest. Will the Prime Minister show some compassion and commit now to compensating all victims who got the virus through government controlled tainted blood?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has said many times in the House that he is absolutely willing to look at the fund to see if there is an actuarial surplus and it is established by the court, that the surplus be used for the best use possible. That use could very well include compensating the pre-1986 and post-1990 victims.
The member should remember that the government has done a lot for those people. It has invested $300 million with the provinces and over $500 million to help the victims of hepatitis C outside of the window.
The EnvironmentMr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last night Fraser Valley residents and politicians travelled to a Washington state public hearing to oppose the construction of a new polluting power plant only 500 meters from the Canadian border. SE2 would become the largest new air polluter in the Fraser Valley air shed.
Every day this week I have asked the environment minister about this. That minister was not at that meeting last night. November 1 is his last chance to oppose this polluter.
Will the minister act now to oppose that polluting power plant and stick up for the Canadian environment?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have worked very closely with the hon. member. I am a bit surprised by the question he is asking because we have had full communication on this very important issue.
Economic DevelopmentMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario.
On Monday the government announced $10 million in funding to eastern Ontario through the eastern Ontario development fund. It appears there is some confusion among members of the opposition as to how this fund works.
Could the minister of state set the record straight on this announcement and tell the House how the funding will benefit the citizens of eastern rural Ontario?
Hon. Joe Comuzzi (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, about a year ago we met with community leaders from eastern Ontario. They were very concerned about the layoffs in the high tech industry, the absence of working capital for small economic enterprises, and the layoffs in the manufacturing sector.
After the work of many committee members, the announcement made on Monday was for a $10 million program to be dedicated exclusively to eastern Ontario.
If I can clear this up once and for all, the program will be administered by FedNor and there is no--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.
PensionsMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians want their government to ensure that elderly Canadians live their lives with dignity by providing them a pension that is compassionate and fair.
An access to information request revealed that the Prime Minister considered increasing to 67 years the age at which seniors could start receiving their pensions. What hypocrisy. The Prime Minister tries to sell himself as a defender of social programs and yet he keeps his real agenda hidden.
Why does the Prime Minister hide his real agenda?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the question entirely. Furthermore, we are taking concerted steps in terms of increasing the GIS to benefit seniors in this country.
AgricultureMr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last night I had a teleconference with members of my farm council back in Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. Even over the phone I could hear the growing desperation in many of their voices. The border is not opened. The CAIS cheques have not arrived. Farmers are losing hope they will see any assistance before it is too late.
My farmers are watching question period today. They are waiting to hear the Prime Minister's answer. What is the Prime Minister going to do to ensure that my farmers can survive at least until Christmas?
Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, certainly in the short term to ensure that there is liquidity, there are a number of sources of revenue that are going to beef producers. First of all, the CAIS payments in respect to 2003 are being made. Advances for 2004 are being made. The last of the payments under the TISP have been made in the last couple of weeks and a special cash advance for beef producers is being put in place.
To date, under CAIS, some $275 million has been disbursed this year and additional moneys will be disbursed. In addition to that, as I mentioned earlier, the September 10 announcement dealing with the long term stability and profitability of the industry is putting in--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Soraida Sabbah, who is a Palestinian citizen, has been invited to attend the Arab World Festival for a presentation of the documentary film in which she is not just an extra, but the main character. The event will be held in Montreal on the weekend. However, the Canadian Embassy in Tel Aviv still has not issued her a visitor's visa.
Since there is only one day left before the event to which Ms. Sabbah was invited, is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration planning to take the necessary measures to issue the visa as quickly as possible?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we cannot comment on individual cases. I know that the minister has always intervened to ensure that those who should be coming to Canada in order to do important work like this will be able to do so. However, we cannot comment on this particular case.
The EnvironmentMs. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne challenges the government's environmental performance and commits it to systematically integrating sustainable development into the government decision making process. The Speech from the Throne also commits the federal government to inform the Canadian public better.
Can the Minister of the Environment explain how he intends to meet these commitments?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right to mention how the Speech from the Throne commits the government to keep the environment central to its decisions.
Allow me to read out the long list of measures. Stop me when I run out of time. The list is so long I will not have enough time.
The government is committed to using a significant amount of the money it received from the sale of PetroCanada to market environmental technologies. The government will consolidate its environmental assessments to make them more efficient. It will make its procurement policy much greener. It will defend the ecological integrity of its parks. The government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.
Foreign AffairsMr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it has been 18 months since the announcement of a France-Quebec economic mission to Mexico. Quebec entrepreneurs have already bought the 100 seats available. This event is less than three weeks away, but Ottawa has yet to give its agreement so that Jean Charest can meet with Vicente Fox.
Considering that the government was very quick to authorize a meeting between Ralph Klein and President Fox, two years ago, how does the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain that, when it comes to Quebec, things get extremely complicated?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that a brand new member of this House is already playing this complex victimization game that is so typical of his political party.
I can assure the House that we were very pleased to facilitate things for Premier Charest's request to meet with the President of Mexico. Everything was done in a totally regular fashion. We are waiting for the reply of the Mexican presidency and we will transmit that reply to Mr. Charest as soon as we receive it.
BankruptciesMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of labour.
Will the minister acknowledge that he is aware of the lobbying efforts on behalf of the United Steelworkers of America who are here fighting for their members' pension rights in the cases of bankruptcy? The minister would also know that his House leader made serious commitments with regard to making these changes during the election campaign.
My colleague from Winnipeg Centre will be introducing legislation supported by the Bloc that would make the changes that would help protect workers' pensions.
Will you commit to send at least--
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member is addressing himself to the minister.
David Emerson: Mr. Speaker, the member will know that CCAA and Canadian insolvency and bankruptcy legislation comes under the Minister of Industry. We are focusing right now on a review of that legislation. It does form a very important part of our approach to transforming the economy going forward.
I am fully aware of the United Steelworkers' position paper. I have read it. It is very interesting. It puts a strong focus on workers' rights. We have to balance those rights against the rights of other creditors.
TransportMr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, about 30 years ago the Canadian government said no to the passage of U.S. oil tankers through Head Harbour Passage to a proposed oil refinery in Eastport, Maine. Now 30 years later there is a proposal on the table in the U.S. for a liquefied natural gas terminal.
The passage is still dangerous. Has the Government of Canada taken a firm position on that?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada has not changed. We have not received any information that we need to change it so we will not change it.

Routine Proceedings
House of CommonsThe Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the performance report of the House of Commons administration for 2003-04.
Points of OrderHon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during question period, the hon. deputy leader of the official opposition, the member of Parliament for Central Nova, referred in his question to the “ famiglia ” in a tone making reference to a former member of the House.
On behalf of my constituents of Italian origin and all Canadians of Italian origin, I am compelled to ask the member to withdraw unconditionally his remarks which I and my colleagues find to be offensive, unparliamentary and racist remarks.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the old case of we doth protest too much.
If the hon. member is looking for some kind of an inference, she is drawing a long bow and if some negative inference to the Liberal Party or in fact, if some negative inference from organized crime being compared to the Liberal Party was drawn, then I would withdraw.
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, according to the statutes, and I have sat in that chair and you will agree with me that what the member said was not withdrawing the remark.
I consider the remark to be very offensive to all members of the House. It was said in a certain tone and there is reference in the statutes in terms of the tone that is used in the House.
I ask the hon. member again, on behalf of all members and all Canadians of Italian origin, to withdraw that remark.
The Speaker: Obviously the hon. member for Central Nova is not rising.
I must say the Chair is unfamiliar with the word. I do not know what to suggest. I am unable to form any conclusion. I am sorry, I do not know the word and therefore I will have to look into the matter and I will get back to the House in due course.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. We will move on to tabling of documents.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Get a life.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: You are a clown.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there is one thing for which I hope all members in the House strive and that is to keep a certain decorum.
To have the deputy leader of the opposition refer to a minister of the crown as a clown is totally unacceptable.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, and on behalf of us all in the House, that you would demand certain decorum. Referring to members of the House and members of cabinet as clowns is just not acceptable language in the House.
The Speaker: It would be helpful if hon. members paid attention to the agenda. We dealt with the point of order and I said I would take the matter under advisement.
I was going through the routine proceedings for the day and instead of listening, members were yelling at one another. Apparently offensive words were used. I did not hear these words. I know there was yelling. I could hear a lot of noise and I did call for order. Instead of order we are having this yelling going on. It is not helpful to decorum in the House.
The deputy government House leader has said that the word “clown” was used in relation to a minister. I am afraid we have heard that word in the House before. I am not sure that it is unparliamentary but I will look into the matter and when I come back on the disorder that apparently was caused earlier in respect of the use of some other word that has been objected to, I will deal with the matter.
In the meantime, I would urge hon. members to show proper restraint--I will not say judicious; this is not a court--but proper restraint in their use of language.
Committees of the HouseMr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In accordance with its order of reference of Friday, October 8, the committee has considered vote 5 under Parliament in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005, less the amount voted in interim supply, and reports the same.
I also have the 10th report from the same committee which is verbatim.
I also have the honour to present to the House the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the provisional standing order governing petitions. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 11th report later this day.
I also have the honour to present the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the provisional standing orders governing private members' business. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 12th report later this day.
Interest ActPat Martin: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-244, an act to amend the Interest Act (interest payable on repayment of a mortgage loan before maturity).

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to introduce the bill dealing with making amendments to the Interest Act. The purpose of the bill is to provide that a financial institution that makes a mortgage loan of $500,000 or less to a person must allow the person to repay the loan prior to it coming to maturity in return for the payment of interest in lieu of notice as prescribed by regulation.
This would provide relief to many homeowners who may be tied into long term mortgages but are able to pay off the loan earlier. It has come to our attention that it is of great interest to many Canadians who wish this change to the act to be put through.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
First Nations Veterans Compensation ActPat Martin: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-247, an act to provide compensation to first nations veterans on a comparable basis to that given to other war veterans.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of first nations veterans all across the country, given that we are coming close to Remembrance Day, I think it is very fitting we present this bill that would call for the House of Commons and for Parliament to revisit the compensation package for first nations veterans.
The recommendations of the task force were that first nations veterans should receive $140,000 to $350,000 in compensation in lieu of the benefits they would have received were they not aboriginal. The compensation package the federal government gave them was $20,000 per person and they had to sign a waiver that they could not ask for any more.
The bill would actually reopen the negotiations and allow the government to compensate first nations veterans fairly.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Bank ActPat Martin: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-249, an act to amend the Bank Act (bank mergers).

Mr. Speaker, the bill is put forward today due to what we believe is a pending interest of our five charter banks to conduct mergers. If the bill were enacted, it would prevent the merger of banks with each other or with other federally incorporated bodies to create one bank unless the superintendent of financial institutionsadvises the Minister of Finance that the merger is necessary to prevent an insolvency, or informs the minister that none of the applicants wishing to merge are about to become insolvent. In the latter case, the merger would have to be approved by a resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Family Farm Cost-of-Production ActPat Martin: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-250, An Act to provide cost-of-production protection for the family farm.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me say that this enactment would not provide for support on a product by product basis to farmers and, therefore, is not a direct product subsidy. What the enactment would do is provide cost of production protection to family farms in cases where the weighted average input cost of products typically produced or suited to production in a farming zone exceeds the weighted average net back to farm gate of such products averaged over three years.
The costs would be calculated on the basis of the marketable product and take into account bad weather, pests and other crop factors. The calculations would be based on the normal crops or livestock produced for food or breeding and are to be approved by an independent auditor.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees of the HouseDale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMaurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, the petition that I present here today is from 244 people in my Saskatchewan riding of Saskatoon—Wanuskewin and some from beyond.
The petition calls upon Parliament to support the traditional, historic and sacred definition of marriage in the onslaught of a move to another direction. The support of the historic and sacred definition of marriage is asked for by these petitioners.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce two petitions today from the great riding of Cariboo—Prince George.
The folks who have signed the first petition have seen the falling of Bill C-23 and want the government to amend it to allow for retroactive inclusion of sex offenders serving a sentence or on parole for sexual offences, and that sex offenders automatically be included in the national sex offender registry, removing the possibility of using the registry as a bargaining chip when going through the criminal justice system.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, in my second petition, the petitioners in the riding of Cariboo—Prince George call upon Parliament to immediately hold a renewed debate on the definition of marriage and that it reaffirm, as it did in 1999, its commitment to take all necessary steps to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
I support and agree with both of these petitions.
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions. The first one is in line with Carley's Law, which is sponsored by myself and my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George.
The petitioners, many of them from across the country, are asking to amend the Criminal Code, failure to stop at the scene of accident, to make sentencing for hit and run offenders more severe.
We certainly hope that the House of Commons takes due note of that and that it will be coming to the House shortly.
Randy White: Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and woman to the exclusion of all others.
Randy White: Mr. Speaker, a third petition asks for Parliament to disallow conditional sentencing for sexual offences against children, mandate consecutive sentences in cases where violent acts against children are committed, promote measures of early identification and behaviour modification of potential sex predators and undertake a complete review of the entire issue of sexual exploitation of children.
Randy White: Mr. Speaker, the final petition asks Parliament to amend Bill C-23 allowing for retroactive inclusion of sex offenders serving a sentence or parole for sex offenders, and that sex offenders automatically be included in the national sex offender registry, something that the government has failed to look after.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce yet another in the long series of petitions that I have been presenting to the House of Commons.
This one is from the citizens of Schreiber, Ontario and St. Stephen, New Brunswick. Like those preceding them, they wish to draw to the attention of the House that Canadian Forces Housing Agency does provide on base housing and that it provides a valuable purpose by allowing military families to live in a military community. However they also wish to draw to the attention of the House that many of these homes that are provided are below acceptable living standards and that they are also subject to periodic and very substantial rent increases to those who are least able to afford them.
Therefore they call upon Parliament to immediately suspend any future rent increases for accommodation provided by the Canadian Forces Housing Agency until such time as the Government of Canada makes substantive improvements to these homes to bring them up to an acceptable standard for our military families.
Questions on the Order PaperHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention the Order Paper and Notice Paper of October 6 of this year. The first question on the order paper in the House was by the member for New Brunswick Southwest, yours truly, in regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans licence buy-out program.
The point I want to make, and I was up about a week ago on this same issue, is that my questions are now two Parliaments old. The ministry was aware of these questions back on April 15.
We have gone through an election. The government has had several months to answer those questions. I know the parliamentary secretary will get up and say that there is a 45 day period, but that is totally unacceptable. When he stood in his place a couple of weeks ago with respect to the same question that I put today, he made a commitment that he and the department would get back to me to discuss the answering of those questions and why the delay. He has not fulfilled that commitment.
The fact is that we are entitled to answers to those questions. We can only have four questions on the order paper, but when we go through several months, there is something wrong. Why is there a delay in answering those very specific questions on the licence buy-out program?
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest has more experience than I do in this House. He clearly knows that the rules provide for a 45 day delay. He says several months; 45 days normally is a month and a half.
On this side of the House we were so confident in the member's re-election, because of the effective work he has done in New Brunswick Southwest, that we would not have wanted to deprive him of being able to put on the order paper in this Parliament a question which he so enjoyed seeing on the order paper in the last Parliament.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we take the standing orders very seriously. There is no effort whatsoever on the part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to not answer the question in a timely manner. There is so much good news coming from the aboriginal fisheries licence program and the aboriginal fisheries strategy that to put together all of this good news and to show how effective the program has been will take some time.
The program has been a considerable success in my own riding. I know the member for New Brunswick Southwest will want to celebrate this success when he gets his answer in the prescribed time period.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): I think the member for New Brunswick Southwest has a grievance and the parliamentary secretary is taking good note, but this is not a point of order.
Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, then debate; he turned it into a debate. I want an answer. He did not provide an answer.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): This is not a point of order and we are not in debate.
Is it agreed that all questions be allowed to stand?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Greg Thompson: No, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): This being Friday and the week having been tiring, we will listen to the hon. member very briefly.
Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your generosity. This is twice in one day and I am overwhelmed.
I want to urge the government to proceed with answering questions. The parliamentary secretary is falling back on a technicality. He talks about the 45 day answering period.
If the Chair will listen carefully, which I know you do and you did, he said a 45 day delay. He actually used the word delay. Why the need for delay? The exact same questions were on the order paper on April 15 two parliaments ago. That is completely unacceptable.
The parliamentary secretary is very clever because he stands up and talks about how great a guy I am, which is fine, but he is trying to dodge the bullet.
The fact is this is a program with no transparency. Every member in this place who has a fisheries component in their riding wants answers to these questions. I am sure the member himself would like some technical and accurate responses from the department. The fact is that the department has no idea and is completely lost on this file.
I urge the parliamentary secretary to talk to the minister of fisheries and get some answers, and get them soon.
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the member that this is an important question.
He referred to the standing orders as a technicality. I do not view them that way. If he would like to amend the standing orders, I am sure there is a process that he could look into.
In the meantime, I can assure the House that the government entirely respects the standing orders. I too look forward to the positive news and the great success story that will come out when the member gets an answer to his question on the order paper.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is it agreed that all questions be allowed to stand?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, an act to give effect to a land claims and self-government agreement among the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, to make related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): I understand the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has five minutes left on questions and comments.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre-North.
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened as my hon. friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca spoke with respect to this matter and I was surprised with respect to some of his comments because, looking at some of the other things which the hon. member has said in the House, he seems to have undergone quite an epiphany.
Specifically, on June 9, 1994, in respect of the land claim relating to Yukon which was then before the House, my friend said:

Bill C-34 gives special rights and special privileges to some of the native peoples of the Yukon Territory. As a representative here of all Canadians I have some problems with this. This bill is divisive. It will define the citizens of the First Nations as a separate group of citizens. Therefore what we would have in this land are two citizenships, citizens with different rules and regulations pertaining to each group.
As a result of this we are setting up separate governments for separate nations within the borders of this country, new governments with broad legislative powers, independent legislative powers of the rest of the country.
Native peoples see themselves as separate nations and not part of Canada. This I recognize. It is obviously a philosophical point of contention. To see oneself as a nation that is separate from another within the borders of this country may sound good to some, but I think that it is only divisive.

The hon. member carried on to say a number of other things which were significantly less moderate and which I do not want to have come out of my mouth in this chamber. On June 5, 1995, in relation to the Nisga'a agreement, the hon. member opposite said:

In closing, I would strongly urge the government to invest in policies that will enable native people to take care of themselves in a sustainable way in the future. Land claims are not the answer.

I wonder if my hon. friend would be good enough to explain for the benefit of the citizens in his constituency and other Canadians how he has undergone such an epiphany or are these merely chunterings from the other side of the House?
My hon. friend referenced chapter 7.7.2 of the agreement here in the House stating that it effectively had a concept of federal paramountcy. Leaving aside the other provisions of the agreement, I wonder if my learned friend would assist the House by explaining how chapter 7.7.2 operates and if he could describe for the House what is the difference between federal legislation of general application and other federal legislation?
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to compare equivalency, apples to apples, not apples to oranges, and my comments before were related to circumstances where I felt that laws would be different. My feelings have always been that the laws of Canada should supercede any laws of another nature.
That is the beauty of this agreement and I encourage the member from the other side to look at this very closely. The Tlicho have been very careful in ensuring that this was within the constitutional framework. The Tlicho people will establish their rules and regulations within the constitutional framework of Canada, not separate from it, not above it, but indeed within the framework.
The Tlicho government will respect Canadian law fully and the Tlicho people will recognize that as Canadians they are subject to federal law everywhere. They are subject to the same laws as everyone else in Canada. The laws of Canada will supercede any other laws that are made within the context of this agreement.
Furthermore, and this is an important point that the hon. member should realize, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms supercedes any kinds of agreements or laws that are made up within this agreement. The member should be very happy that if he had the same concerns that I had, where laws would somehow supercede the laws of Canada, those questions have been answered fully. Within the context of chapter 7 within the agreement, it clearly states and supports the comments that I have made in response to his questions.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 is a land claim and self-government agreement between the Tlicho, earlier known as the Dogrib, the government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada. It makes amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and consequential amendments to other acts. Because this is a land claim agreement as well as a self-government agreement, it is constitutionally protected. This enabling legislation also gives effect to the tax treatment agreement for the Tlicho.
The federal government has essentially been carving up the north since the 1980s. It did it through the creation of Nunavut, through the comprehensive Yukon Indian agreement for the 14 Yukon first nations, and it has done it in the western Arctic with the Gwich’in, the Inuvialuit, and the Sahtu land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories.
There are essentially two areas in the north not yet covered with a land claim after the Tlicho agreement. Those are the Akaitcho and Deh Cho in the Northwest Territories, bordering to the south and west of the Tlicho agreement we are talking about today. I hope that kind of puts a perspective on things for people who are listening.
We have an interesting scenario here. The former premier of the Northwest Territories, Stephen Kakfwi, prior to holding the premiership, held the aboriginal portfolio and even held it during his time as premier. He consistently supported a very strong aboriginal and northern ownership agenda.
Last year he suggested that the Northwest Territories would live under some form of aboriginal governance within five years. We have had a lot of land claim agreements, as I just portrayed, but we certainly have not had much in the way of aboriginal self-government agreements. This means that he is promoting an agenda that would lead to many new agreements. This agreement would be a forerunner of that.
The governance provisions in this agreement are obviously precedent setting and, one would imagine, very important for us to scrutinize because they have major implications for future negotiations. I think that is of great concern to us from the standpoint that this agreement has received very little scrutiny. There has been very little interest from the rest of the world. There is a lack of clarity in this agreement, such as the concerns about paramountcy.
There are paramountcy concerns in many of our aboriginal agreements, but this one is exacerbated by the fact that it is not just two sets of laws that are colliding, it is very often three sets of laws: those of the Northwest Territories, those of the federal government and those of, in this case, the Tlicho.
Therefore, without clarity this could lead to all kinds of collisions and jurisdictional disputes. There is no satisfaction in talking to the bureaucracy or anyone involved in these negotiations in terms of getting answers to specific questions when it comes to that issue.
I have some very real sympathy with the aspirations of the north and with the fact that the federal government has been an oppressive presence in many respects.
We know from the current situation that has been brought to light about the differences between Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and the federal government over offshore revenues from oil and gas, for example, that there is every reason to believe that no Liberal federal government has ever wanted the provinces to control resource revenues or their own resources. That goes doubly so for the Northwest Territories and for Nunavut and Yukon.
I have some real sympathies to the reasons and the rationale for some of the expressions of using this land claim and self-government initiative to try and bring new expression to northern control over resources. I am not sure this vehicle is always the best way but it has been their only way.
Only last year, Jim Antoine, a very well known MLA in the Northwest Territories and the resources minister, stated that aboriginal governments would become allies in the territories' fight to win control over its resources and the associated royalties from the federal government. That is a validation of what I just said and a validation about the ongoing dispute, not just with the north, but with the provinces over control of their own resources, their own destiny and their problems with clawbacks and other arrangements whereby there is a disincentive to carry on enterprise and resource extraction.
The bill is rather compact but it would give force of law to the tripartite agreement of August 25, 2003, and that accords the agreement from 2003 paramountcy over the act itself. The act would bring into law these very complex provisions.
The Tlicho First Nation would have ownership of approximately 39,000 square kilometres of area north of Yellowknife and between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake. Under the terms of Bill C-14, the first nation would also acquire participatory regulatory authority over a much larger area. The bill is unique in that it would give effect to the land claim and the self-government agreement.
The act and the agreement have been put before this Parliament on an all or nothing basis. The government, on the advice of the clerk and the House, has taken the position that Parliament lacks the capacity to amend the provisions of the agreement. For this reason, the legislation was introduced by way of a notice of ways and means motion.
What this is really telling us is that the federal government can negotiate essentially any agreement it so chooses in its area of expertise and can do so in a completely unchecked fashion.
We have great concerns about that. We and the other opposition parties expressed our concerns about the lack of any democratic check on the government's ability to sign on to the missile defence initiative, for example. We amended the throne speech so that a vote will be held in this place if the government decides to proceed with the missile defence initiative.
The government signs many other international treaties where the degree of scrutiny might be something we want to look at, but surely, when it comes to a domestic arrangement that will be constitutionally protected and that is something that is as complex as this agreement is, there must be some arrangement that allows for amendments to or checks on the fact that our bureaucracy, one department, one minister and the cabinet, can simply approve an agreement of this degree of seriousness.
I think there is a huge issue at stake and, I must say, I disagree with the position that the House has taken on this. I do not believe this contributes to democracy in any way. As a matter of fact, I believe it undercuts democracy. The very role that the House should be providing has been undercut by this decision.
The agreement gives 3,000 Tlicho people claims to subsurface resources, law-making authority and the power to tax, levy royalties and manage resources. The 39,000 square kilometres area is roughly half the size of New Brunswick. It is bounded on the north by the Sahtu, on the east by the Nunavut and on the south and west by the future Akaitcho and Deh Cho territories.
In order to negotiate this agreement, the negotiating costs for the Tlicho alone were $27 million. If we think about that, a group of 3,000 people spent $27 million just on their side alone negotiating this agreement and the House of Commons has no opportunity to change one sentence in that agreement. I do not know of any other jurisdiction that would accept this, but in any case, that is where we are. This is not a proud record. I would assume that all of the negotiating costs combined must be approaching $80 million.
I want to summarize some of the specifics of the agreement for the interest of our listeners. I think it is important that we know some of the non-self-government settlement provisions.
Two operating diamond mines in the Tlicho territory are specifically excluded from the land claim area but remain within the territory. Any future subsurface extraction on Tlicho lands would be subject to a Tlicho royalty regime.
Five years ago we were essentially a non-diamond producing nation. Now we are the third largest diamond producing nation on the globe and we have every reason to believe that we will become second in short order. There are lots of future expansions of diamond mining that will occur north of 60° and in northern Ontario, northern Saskatchewan and other jurisdictions.
Yes, the existing mines are excluded but for any future mines within the Tlicho it is quite realistic to assume that they will be on lands owned by the Tlicho. As it stands right now, under the Mackenzie Valley resource sharing agreement, the Tlicho get 10.5% of the first $2 million of mineral royalties received by the federal and territorial governments for subsurface resources within the five regions of the Mackenzie Valley and a further 2.1% after the $2 million figure is reached. This would bring in about $3.5 million a year to the Tlicho government from the whole basin.
The royalties from the existing diamond mines that are specifically excluded from the Tlicho lands contribute to that formula, which is also shared by the Shatu, the Gwich'in and others in the Mackenzie Valley region. The proposed route of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would not traverse Tlicho lands and, therefore, is not an issue at this time.
The band is involved in hydro development and is likely to become self-sufficient and a net contributor to the grid for the Northwest Territories. The largest of the four Tlicho communities, Rae-Edzo, is located along the Fraser Highway and the Tlicho government is planning an all weather highway to link the other three communities, which are Lac la Martre, Snare Lake and Rae Lake. I must say that adding these kinds of infrastructures to the north are important and progressive and are all very good initiatives.
The taxation provisions of the agreement are a little unclear since there is no concluded taxation agreement between Canada and the Tlicho, although one is to be concluded. Once again, here we are enabling something that is yet to happen without any ability to amend anything.
Tlicho citizens would pay GST and income tax. Tlicho government corporations would not pay either tax when conducting business on Tlicho land. The Indian Act would no longer apply to Tlicho citizens and Tlicho lands would not be considered reserve lands. Tlicho citizens would have continued access to all federal programs for status and non-status Indians and Métis. The Tlicho government would receive taxes paid to the federal government from Tlicho residents. The Criminal Code would continue to apply.
This agreement has a $152 million cash settlement to be paid out over 15 years, and the Tlicho government will pay off its $27 million negotiating loan in its first six years. In addition, there is a one time payment of $5 million from the federal government to an economic development fund to be managed by the Tlicho government.
Although the agreement has received little attention in the Canadian media, it is certainly the most significant agreement concluded by the Canadian government in recent years, as I have explained. We have some issues with this agreement and I think they generally fall under several categories.
I will summarize my major concerns by talking about the jurisdictional confusion, the absence of finality that is not in the agreement and the fact that we are simply doing this in a vacuum. The whole agreement has been agreed to by a few individuals and is being rubber stamped because no other option is available to us as the Parliament of Canada.
Somehow we have to revisit how these initiatives are approached right from the beginning and ask what the long term ramifications will be of these precedent setting agreements that tend to create a jurisdictional lack of clarity between Tlicho or aboriginal law, territorial or provincial law and federal law.
Hon. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with that speaker, I do not know where to begin on some of the misinformation. I will take that it is innocently laid on the table, so I will try to clarify some of the comments he has made.
The Tlicho agreement and the tax treatment agreement set out the status and authorities of the Tlicho government and the Tlicho community governments with respect to taxation. Tlicho citizens will be subject to taxation in the same way as other Canadians. The Tlicho agreement provides that the Tlicho government can enact laws in relation to direct taxation of Tlicho citizens on Tlicho lands or in Tlicho communities.
In addition, the Tlicho community governments can make laws respecting taxation similar to property taxation in other municipalities. Federal taxation authorities are not affected by these new authorities. Like other governmental bodies, the Tlicho government will be entitled to a refund of the goods and services tax paid in the course of performing a function of government, and similarly the income of the Tlicho government and the Tlicho community governments will be tax exempt.
The ratification process we are going through is where they will get inside their agreement the taxation authority. Documents have been made. The only document that is left undone is the tax sharing one between departments, like we would have with any province or territory and the federal government.
What is important to understand is Tlicho people pay taxes now and they will continue to pay taxes. They will have new rights. The new rights will come about because they are in the written agreement, which we will ratify. For anybody who understands procedure in the House, and he is a longer-standing member so I would have expected him to know this, when there is a taxation authority, the procedural ways and means motion is the way we bring it here. We have to do that because there is a taxation part on what we are doing.
That is procedure. It is not something that somebody dreamed up. I know the member from our party said that. It is in the documents at the table. It can be confirmed by the clerks who sit at the table who are independent procedural experts. It is a rule of the House and that is how we have to proceed. It has nothing to do with what can or cannot be done afterwards. It has to do with the authorities that are needed. The member for Winnipeg Centre also reiterated the same point. We are certainly not of the same party and often not of the same view.
He said many things about minerals. The lack of generosity boggles my mind. The whole point of giving resources is so a community can develop. There will be taxes paid. There will be certainty for those inside the territory and outside the territory as to the boundaries of the territory. Economic community for aboriginal Canadians is good for every Canadian. It is all about that.
Is this the same mindset that we saw in Nisga'a, or is it really just an evolution to another excuse not to contribute to the advancement of aboriginal Canadians and treaty processes in the country?
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have been here at least as long as the parliamentary secretary. I was the aboriginal affairs critic from 1994 to 1997 and again the last couple of years prior to my re-posting in this new Parliament. In that role we dealt with many of these agreements in the north. We dealt with the Nisga'a agreement, the Westbank agreement, the First Nations Land Management Act and taxation authority in various guises and forms.
Prior to this legislation, the House has never before handled one of these self-government or land claims bills in the fashion where it was an all or nothing swallow it whole, way. To suggest that Nisga'a was done in that way is not correct. We had vote after vote on amendment to the Nisga'a agreement in the House. That was done through a completely different process.
The member either has forgotten or does not know from whence she speaks. To somehow suggest that this is the only way to approach this kind of agreement, contradicts the facts. This is never how we have approached these agreements before. I hope it is never how we approach these agreements in the future. It is in the best interest of the government not to approach them in this way because it will end up wearing it, if there is a need in the future to amend it.
The government has failed to see what should have been seen. We are the most important check and balance on ensuring that it occurs. We are 308 members from across the country.
Sue Barnes: Check your record, it's the same. Check in Hansard .
John Duncan: I will try to keep my clarity of thought despite the heckling of the parliamentary secretary. I think I have quite answered her questions.
Everything she had to say about the taxation treatment was basically covered in my speech. Therefore, I do not know what new information she brought to the table, other than a question about how this is handled in Parliament, that defies the facts.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in Prince George—Peace River I rise to make a short comment.
One thing I think all Canadians are concerned about with these agreements is not whether a person deems them overly generous, generous or not generous enough, although that is a concern and it is a matter of individual opinion.
When my constituents look at the negotiations that lead up to these agreements, one concern I hear from them consistently is that they are concerned about finality and certainty. They believe that it is in the best interests of not only the aboriginal people themselves but certainly Canadian taxpayers to know that whatever agreement is finally arrived at, hopefully it will be as fair as it can be to both sides. As in any negotiation that takes place, be it private or corporate, we want to see fairness.
Ultimately in the end, we have to have finality and certainty. That is one concern I have consistently raised with all of these agreements. There always seems to be some loophole clauses that something can come back later, or if some other agreement is reached that is perhaps a bit more generous or less restrictive, and the negotiations are reopened. My constituents often raise that concern with me.
Could the member talk about whether this agreement is final? Oftentimes they are called final agreements, but when we read through the clauses, we find that there is no finality.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there is no finality in terms of the generosity of the agreement. It is a generous agreement. We do not necessarily complain about that. However, there is a clause whereby if any other to be concluded agreement creates situations more generous than what are in this agreement, it would reopen the agreement. It is the growing trend of this area of settlement.
More important, there is no finality to avenues for litigation. By using loose or lack of clarity type language on some of the jurisdictional issues or resource allocation issues, we open ourselves to endless litigation, and I hope we do not end up there.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate you, since I have not had the opportunity to do so yet, on your appointment. We represent taxpayers from the same region and our region is honoured. I am very happy for you and the region.
I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-14, the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act. I have no doubt that passing this bill will benefit both the Tlicho and all Canadians.
The agreement at the heart of this bill grants the Tlicho true control over a significant parcel representing roughly 20% of their traditional territory. In addition, the Government of Canada will pay the Tlicho—in several payments—some $150 million. These numbers will no doubt be the focus of every headline, but this agreement also includes many other provisions that will be just as important to the future of the Tlicho people.
This legislation will give the Tlicho the ability to shape their destiny. The Tlicho will form an effective and representative government and oversee vital aspects of their communities, such as land management, culture and social services. I am confident that by exercising control over their affairs, the Tlicho people will prosper for many generations to come.
And clearly, the Canadian economy benefits from prosperous, sustainable aboriginal communities. My optimism about the impact of Bill C-14 is based, in part, on the way the Tlicho have honoured their ancient traditions in the face of outside influences.
In the past 30 years, the Tlicho have experienced rapid and tumultuous social change. Where Tlicho hunters once tracked caribou, southern companies now mine diamonds. Skidoos and SUVs have largely replaced snowshoes and sleds. Oral histories once spoken by elders are now recorded in books and computers.
Despite the swift incursion of technology, though, the Tlicho continue to abide by their traditions. Elders are revered; the land is respected. And education remains a central focus of the community. Education has long been a crucial component of Tlicho culture. Since time immemorial, succeeding generations of elders have passed on their knowledge of traditional lands, relationships and culture.
When southerners first began to investigate the feasibility of building a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley, Tlicho leaders recognized that such a project would have a dramatic impact on their society. In an effort to cope with change and minimize the negative consequences, the Tlicho invested in education.
In 1968, then Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chrétien met with Chief Jimmy Bruneau to discuss the future of the Tlicho. Chief Bruneau said that his people must learn to blend Northern and Southern cultures so they can take advantage of new technologies and opportunities. Chief Bruneau called for new schools to teach a curriculum that balanced aboriginal and non-aboriginal traditions.
In 1971, Chief Bruneau's dream began to come true when a school bearing his name opened in Rae-Edzo. The school's mission statement, “Be Strong Like Two People”, encapsulated the Chief's vision, and effectively summarized the Tlicho's strategy in dealing with social change.
Within a few years, Canada's first aboriginal school board took control of primary education in all four Tlicho communities. A regional secondary school was added in 1992. Since then, the number of adult students has climbed steadily. And, true to Tlicho tradition, adults attend the same classes as children.The Tlicho-controlled schools have had a significant and positive impact on their communities. Up until the mid-1970s, only a handful of Tlicho had ever graduated from high school. Now an average of 20 Tlicho earn high-school diplomas each year, and a growing number are pursuing degrees and diplomas at colleges and universities.
Tlicho attitudes about formal education have changed over the years. For the past 11 years, Rita Mueller has served as principal of Chief Jimmy Bruneau school, which now has an enrolment of approximately 350. In Ms. Mueller's words:

Ten years ago, a high-school diploma was the be-all and end-all; today it's considered a bare minimum. Most young people plan to continue their studies after high school.

The Tlicho recognize that post-secondary education is crucial to success in the modern era. And Tlicho leaders have found ways to ensure that their people have access to this education. The impact benefit agreements negotiated with the diamond-mining companies Diavik and BHP Billiton include payments to scholarship programs.
Furthermore, the Tlicho have chosen to commit a substantial portion of the payments received under this agreement to a scholarship fund. In this way, Bill C-14 will lead to an annual investment of approximately $500,000 in the Tlicho scholarship fund.
To administer scholarships and bursaries, a seven-person committee comprised of community representatives and teachers was established. The committee interviews applicants, reviews academic records and awards bursaries to the top candidates. The Tlicho were wise enough, though, to recognize that money alone cannot ensure success. Life on a crowded campus thousands of kilometres away from home can be difficult for Tlicho students, particularly when they've been raised in a completely different culture.
To help students adapt, the Tlicho hired a local person to fill the newly created position of regional post-secondary support coordinator. The coordinator maintains regular contact with Tlicho students and helps them cope with life on southern campuses.
The success of these students is crucial to the sustainability of Tlicho communities. To make the most of self-government, the Tlicho must have a group of professionals: managers, lawyers, doctors, teachers. They will also need carpenters, electricians and dozens of technical specialists. Rather than always hire these professionals from outside the community, the Tlicho are determined to train, develop and employ their own people.
This is precisely why Morven MacPherson was hired as regional post-secondary support coordinator. Ms. MacPherson, who had recently completed a second university degree, was delighted to return to Rae-Edzo and take the job. And community leaders recognize that Tlicho people who have completed post-secondary education are more likely to be “strong like two people.” These graduates draw from Tlicho culture and from their formal studies.
The importance of this bi-cultural knowledge cannot be understated. Consider, for example, the management of social services in Tlicho communities. Years ago, there were few social workers in Tlicho communities. When a child needed to be moved from a threatening situation, he or she would end up in Yellowknife, Fort Smith or Red Deer—far from Tlicho culture, language and traditions. Today, however, the head of social services is Nora Wetson, a Tlicho woman with a degree from the University of Regina. Ms. Wetson strives to ensure that social services are delivered in a way that balances Tlicho and southern perspectives.
Given the progressive approach to education and social services adopted by community leaders, the Tlicho can look forward to a new generation that is “strong like two people.” Today, the Tlicho support more than 130 people in post-secondary institutions. Among them are students of medicine, engineering and dozens of other disciplines. Many of these men and women will become leaders in Tlicho communities.
The legislation before us today validates the careful and respectful approach to development adopted by the Tlicho. I support Bill C-14 because it will enable the Tlicho to realize their potential. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mario Silva: Mr. Speaker, I fully support Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act, legislation that will enact the Tlicho agreement. I believe that this agreement serves as an important milestone in the evolving relationship between Canada and the aboriginal people.
It is true that there are gaps that separate first nations, Inuit, Metis and northerners from other Canadians, such as health and economic opportunity. We must do more to ensure that Canada's prosperity is shared by Canada's aboriginal people. The situation has begun to improve.
Private companies are partners with first nations, Inuit, Metis and northerners in some of the largest economic development projects in the country. The Government of Canada negotiated land claims and self-government agreements that enable aboriginal groups to fulfill their potential.
Bill C-14 is a case in point. This legislation will provide the Tlicho with access to resources, legal status, and the governance mechanisms it needs to develop socially, economically and culturally.
While my esteemed colleagues have addressed various aspects of Bill C-14 and the Tlicho agreement, I will focus my comments on the bill's effects on entrepreneurship. Its fostering of entrepreneurship is key to the economic and social development of all communities, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.
Unfortunately, for many years the entrepreneurial spirit has not supported the aboriginal communities. Isolated from the mainstream economy and with limited access to resources, many of these communities had little choice but to rely on the public purse.
Today, however, the situation has improved dramatically. Land claims and self-government agreements enable aboriginal communities to access the resources needed to prosper. Training programs ensure that young people can acquire the skills they need to succeed and venture capital funds enable entrepreneurships to access the money needed to explore emerging opportunities.
Bill C-14 will support this entrepreneurial spirit among the Tlicho in numerous ways. The bill clarifies the ownership of land and resources, giving the Tlicho people more tools to foster economic development in their traditional territory.
In addition, the Tlicho will receive more than $150 million paid out over a period of 14 years. These payments will enable the Tlicho to support the growing number of band owned businesses.
I understand, for instance, that the Tlicho are investigating the possibility of hiring aboriginal artists to create unique jewellery using diamonds from the mines in the Northwest Territories. Such an undertaking requires substantial venture capital and may not yield a profit for several years. Once Bill C-14 is proclaimed, the Tlicho will be better positioned to assume the risk and invest the capital.
As members are aware, the Tlicho people have already demonstrated remarkable business acumen. They have negotiated and maintained agreements for two large diamond mines in the region. Under these agreements the Tlicho receive access to jobs, training opportunities and scholarship investments.
When the Tlicho people secured these agreements, they recognized that they would benefit only for as long as the diamond mines operated. To derive long term benefits from short term projects the Tlicho co-founded a company with ATCO Frontec, a private business with a history of successful aboriginal partnerships.
The joint owned company, Tli Cho Logistics, provides service to northern mining projects. Initially, the Tli Cho Logistics company employed Tlicho people as unskilled labours. ATCO Frontec hired others to staff administrative and managerial positions. Over a period of several years however ATCO Frontec will train Tlicho staff for these skilled positions. Eventually, the Tlicho, who own 51% of Tli Cho Logistics, will assume control over the company.
This agreement ensures that when the diamond mines close, the Tlicho will have the expertise and experience needed to develop or bid on projects in other sectors, such as hydro electric, oil, gas and tourism.
The partnerships benefit everyone. ATCO Frontec establishes a thriving company that generates profits for its shareholders. The Tlicho acquire expertise and Canada gains another enterprise that contributes to the economy.
There can be little doubt that negotiated settlements, such as the Tlicho agreement have a significant and positive impact on the economy, but do not take my word for it. Consider a recent report by the respected accounting firm of Grant Thornton. The report analyzed the economic impact of negotiated settlements in British Columbia and stated that treaties deliver “a large net positive financial and economic benefit for British Columbia”.
A second study describes the importance of negotiated settlements from a different perspective. The B.C. Treaty Commission surveyed 141 companies, including 118 that are headquartered in British Columbia. One in four respondents said that companies had plans to invest in the province within the next five years if a significant number of land claims were settled.
Let us consider for a moment the ramifications that these findings have for Canada's economic policy. It is increasingly clear that negotiated settlements have substantial impacts well beyond the community level.
Today, first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners are involved in every sector of the economy. Some of the largest projects underway in Canada, diamond and nickel mines and oil sands, were made possible only because of agreements negotiated with aboriginal communities. The economic benefits of these projects ripple throughout the economy.
In this context, it should come as no surprise that first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners' issues have an increasingly prominent place in the business of the House. After all, there is only one economy and the more aboriginal people participate and contribute to the economy, the better all Canadians will be.
The Prime Minister recognizes the numerous obstacles that hamper the ability of first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners to participate in the economy. To remove these obstacles and promote greater cooperation among the various departments and agencies with aboriginal people, the Prime Minister restructured the upper echelons of government. Today there is a parliamentary secretary, a privy council office, a secretariat, and a cabinet committee, all devoted to aboriginal affairs.
Other recent actions demonstrate the government's intention to follow through on its commitment to aboriginal people. In the Speech from the Throne the government outlined a strategy to address aboriginal education, governance, housing and health care. The strategy calls for the removal of impediments to economic development for first nations, Inuit, Métis and northern communities. It targets improvements in health care, physical infrastructure and training programs. It aims to facilitate access to tools and mechanisms needed to foster self-sufficiency and sustainability at the community level.
The strategy recognizes that quality of life is about much more than economic levels and access to social services. Quality of life is also about the strength of community bonds. It is about the links between young and old, rich and poor, citizens and governments.
Bill C-14 also recognizes these truths and will put the Tlicho people firmly in a position to enhance the quality of life of its citizens. Decisions on local issues, such as land use, culture and education, will be made by the people most familiar and most affected by these matters.
I am convinced that Bill C-14 would enable the Tlicho to safeguard their culture and increase their contribution to the economy. I urge my hon. colleagues to lend their support to this important legislation.
Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has spent a lot of time in municipal council and that local governments are always concerned with economic development in their communities.
I would like to ask the hon. member just how having that new, local community government will help establish the aspirations of not only the economic development, but how that feeds into the social and the human development of the people in the community.
Mario Silva: Mr. Speaker, this treatment is all about respect. It is about respect for aboriginal people and it is about economic development, as was stated before. It is about giving them dignity and a sense of pride in ownership and taking matters into their own hands. That is what we are trying to create here. The legislation is about economic development. When we give different groups the ability to manage their own affairs, they can do a better job in doing so.
We are very much in agreement with the legislation. We are very proud of the discussions that have taken place over the many years to have agreements with aboriginal people. I am proud to support, along with all my colleagues in the House, Bill C-14.
Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
It is my great honour to rise in the House today. Once again I come to the House to speak to the legislative agenda of a tired and confused minority Liberal government.
On October 7, I spoke in the House in reply to the Speech from the Throne. At that time I was disappointed at the insipid leadership and the weak agenda outlined in the Speech from the Throne. A mere 22 days later, I find my worst fears confirmed.
Just over three weeks into this 38th Parliament and the government has proven that rather than address the issues important to Canadians in a full and honest manner, it has resorted to recycling failed legislation from previous administrations and reneged on promises made in this summer's federal election campaign.
This minority government is so desperate to pad its non-existent legislative agenda that it has rushed the Tlicho land agreement into the House of Commons before it is ready.
In fact, if we take a look at how the bill came before the chamber today, we see that Parliament is once again being manipulated. I would like to remind the House that the bill has been introduced on an all or nothing basis. But then, the Liberals have rarely seen a controversial topic that they could not dodge.
Canadians who are watching these proceedings today are rightly outraged. They know that our debate today is an example of the worst abuse of the political process. The government, on the advice of the clerk of the House, has taken the position that Parliament lacks the capacity to amend the provisions of this agreement. The bill has not proceeded in any way that is respective of parliamentary supremacy.
There has been no consideration at committee, no amendments possible and no way for members of Parliament to contribute to this very important agreement.
I fear that the Liberal government is trying to paint those who would take their parliamentary responsibility seriously as anti-aboriginal or against self-government. I find that sort of tactic insulting, unnecessary and very unproductive.
Why should Canadians be surprised? This is a government that has repeatedly shown that it would rather have the courts do its job than do the hard work itself.
The true shame of this cowardly tactic is that hon. members, such as my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre-North and the official opposition critic for Indian affairs and northern development, cannot share the wisdom of their experience with the House. The party opposite may not bring candidates and members of Parliament to the House whose qualifications they respect and value, but in our party we know that our caucus has the mental fortitude to engage in the legislative process.
The member for Calgary Centre-North brings personal and professional experience that makes him a recognized Canadian expert in the matter of native land claim settlements. This is the betrayal of the Canadian people. It is no wonder they are cynical about the political process.
The bill is too important to be rammed through the House with no opportunity for true legislative amendment. This is not to say that the bill is not without merit. There are many benefits captured within the agreement.
However, beyond the flagrant dismissal of Parliament, what concerns members on this side of the House can be summarized in four main points.
The first are the contentious provisions regarding the finality of this bill. Second, there are concerns that the agreement may incur on Canada's international autonomy. Third, the bill seems to create jurisdictional confusion, a sure route directly to the court system. What a surprise.
Finally, the government is flirting with the discriminatory application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Again, all this will serve to do is create an environment of uncertainty and distrust leading to yet more lengthy court disputes.
Let us take these concerns individually. If Canadians are not going to be provided with true representation through their members of Parliament, the Conservative Party of Canada will show Canadians what a constructive approach to law-making looks like.
The Conservative Party of Canada believes that Canada's first nations deserve equitable and fair powers of self-government. When done right, aboriginal agreements can right the wrongs of the past and set the stage for a bright future for everyone.
We can look at the Nisga'a agreement to see how an agreement can achieve closure to a long standing land claim, and it is this type of finality that is lacking in Bill C-14. The 3,000 Tlicho band members deserve better.
The issue of finality is very important. Aboriginal self-government issues have been ignored and delayed for too long. When the Nisga'a agreement was passed through federal legislation, it gave the first nations confidence that their agreement was a full and final arrangement.
From the point of view of members of the House and Canadians across the country, there must also be a belief that agreements negotiated and passed into legislation are full and final agreements. The bill lacks that finality, leaving first nations, Canadians and parliamentarians playing a waiting game, always unsure if the agreement will be reopened at the whim of a minister or the demand of the Tlicho government looking for more powers or rights.
When negotiating self-government agreements, the federal government walks a fine line between recognizing and granting powers to our first nations and ceding our national sovereignty.
There is still work to be done on Bill C-14 to clarify the provisions relating to international matters. The lack of limits to the Tlicho government's powers to enter into international, national and other territorial agreements creates an unacceptable situation where the federal government would transfer powers to act on the global scene to an internal community.
While the Liberals may have lost their sense of Canadian federalism, on this side of the House we still believe that it is the federal government that negotiates, signs and speaks for the Canadian people. Apparently all their dabbling in unfair, unequal and unpopular governance models have left them confused. The House can rest assured, if the Liberals are unwilling or unable to take responsibility for governing Canada, we are more than prepared to take that weight off their shoulders.
The third item of concern is the area of jurisdictional concern. Allowing the wording of this agreement to stand without amendment could create a third order of government. This was never the intention of self-government under our Constitution. There can be no equal or parallel authority to the federal government. Bill C-14 would allow concurrent authority.
Again, the government would rather push inadequate legislation through the House than do the work to clarify these provisions. If, indeed, this came to a conflict situation, there is no dispute mechanism, once again requiring the courts to address weak legislation put forward by the Liberal government. This is unacceptable.
Finally, we have concerns regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadians value the rights and freedoms protected under the charter and continue to believe in the Constitution as paramount in our federal system.
However the Liberal government has shown its disrespect by recognizing a Tlicho constitution that cannot provide less protection than what is outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It leaves the door open for there to be a constitution which allows for more protection. Legislation is not supposed to create sects, divisions or a group of Canadians who have more rights than others. Bill C-14 is undoubtedly setting an unhealthy precedent.
This approach and the provisions of the legislation make a mockery of the parliamentary process and demean the legitimate rights of Canada's first nations to thoughtful and meaningful self-government legislation.
It is for all those reasons that we believe that Bill C-14 is inadequate and not yet ready to be passed.
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, at the outset of his presentation, mentioned that although there was much in the agreement with which he agreed, there certainly were many flaws contained in the wording of the agreement, which he very eloquently outlined to us in the last few minutes.
I would ask the member to back up and perhaps explain a little more about the things in the agreement with which he does agree, particularly the spirit of the agreement, which to me seems to lend itself to agreeing to a quick resolution of land claims and to the agreement in principle about aboriginal self-government.
Would that be what the hon. member would consider to be the good points in this agreement, but that they are fundamentally flawed by the other points which he just raised?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, absolutely, self-government is the effective good part that we see in this. It is not the only one, but it is the standout.
I represent five first nations in my riding of Macleod. That is a very fundamental issue to those people. It has been far too long that this has sat on the back burner. I look at this as a step in the right direction, but I think, even in having consultations with some of those first nations people in my own riding, they are concerned that this probably steps outside the bounds of what is acceptable.
They want self-government, but they also want to be part of the Canadian Constitution. They want to be able to control their own destiny, but they want to do it in an acceptable manner to all Canadians.
Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, originally this issue dates back to King George III. What a great country we have and what great laws we have established here because we do respect the rights of people and we do have to pay for what we have received. That of course is the land and the many minerals in the wonderful area in the Northwest Territories that this band is involved with.
Being from northern Alberta, I myself am proud to have many aboriginal native relatives from Kinuso, Janvier, Fort Chipewyan and other areas. I am very proud of the fact that they are members of Treaty No. 8.
My concern is that we are setting a precedent for other bands in relation to international negotiations and international treaties. Possibly my friend might be able to answer the question, will this allow the band to negotiate with foreign countries and foreign powers to allow them to occupy the lands of the band, to set up facilities and possibly armaments in that area if the band is allowed to negotiate on an international basis? Certainly, from my reading of the agreement, it gives the band some opportunity to negotiate on an international basis and to set its own precedent and basis for that.
My other question relates to another concern of mine, something which the member brought up. I am not concerned with this for Canadians generally, but for the Canadians within the Tlicho band itself. Is it possible that members within the band will be treated differently if they are not under the charter? I have great concerns for those people. Who is arguing for them at this stage because of their differential treatment on the basis of this agreement allowing them to be treated differently?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, there certainly is a concern for setting precedents in this legislation. As we read it now, there is a lot of ambiguity in the agreement.
If indeed this legislation allows the Tlicho band to have to be consulted on international agreements or treaties, then I would have great concerns that it also provides the band the avenue that it could actually negotiate its own. Certainly something of that nature has to be of great concern to a federal government that represents all Canadians.
In response to the member's second question, I will try to be brief. It sets a bad precedent in the fact that only members of the Tlicho band can sit as chief and a specified number of the band members. It is very limiting in who actually is going to manage this and how one brings in outside expertise.
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to register my opposition to Bill C-14, the Tlicho agreement.
Little attention has been focused on this agreement and it is almost certainly the most significant agreement concluded by the Canadian government in recent years. The effect of this agreement is to create a new third order of aboriginal government with concurrent but paramount jurisdiction over the federal crown. The result will be a Tlicho state governed by a Tlicho constitution which is arguably paramount to the Canadian charter. The agreement also appears to acknowledge or perhaps confer some degree of international authority upon the Tlicho government.
There are a number of provisions in the agreement which are flawed and debatable from a Canadian public policy perspective. To be fair, certain aspects of the agreement are visionary and reflective of a mature and sustainable system of self-government.
Today I will discuss four reasons why the agreement is damaging to the long term interests of Canada. They are first, the absence of finality in the agreement; second, incursions upon Canada's international autonomy; third, confusion of jurisdictional authorities; and fourth, the application of the charter in the adoption of governance structures which are racially based and which arguably contradict the charter.
The first point is the absence of finality. It could be argued that the agreement is generous to a fault in terms of the land, moneys and resources which are provided to the Tlicho. It is worth noting that the Tlicho lands will comprise the single largest block of first nation owned land in Canada. This might be justifiable if the agreement were a final agreement, but unfortunately it is not.
The agreement provides that the Tlicho will receive equivalent benefits to those granted in the future to any other aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories, whether by land claims agreements, self-government agreements, tax power exemption, or legislation. In other words, this agreement is not a final agreement at all.
Please note that this agreement achieves little of the certainty and finality of the Nisga'a agreement. Frankly it is difficult to discern what concessions the federal government even achieved in exchange for the obvious generosity of the agreement.
The second point is the incursion upon Canada's international autonomy. The agreement contains a remarkable section relating to international matters. The agreement states that it does not limit the authority of the Tlicho to enter into international, national, interprovincial and interterritorial agreements, which suggest by implication that the Tlicho government has the authority to enter into international agreements.
The agreement also contains the following remarkable provision which is self-explanatory: “Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho government, the Tlicho First Nation or a Tlicho citizen, flowing from the agreement, the Government of Canada shall provide an opportunity to the Tlicho government to make its views known with respect to the international treaty either separately or through a forum”.
The agreement also provides for an arbitration mechanism between the Government of Canada and the Tlicho government in respect of international legal obligations.
Furthermore, the Government of Canada is obligated under the agreement to consult with the Tlicho government before taking positions before an international tribunal in circumstances where the Tlicho government has taken action giving rise to an international legal controversy.
It would be naive to assume that these provisions are merely reflective of poor drafting.
The third issue is jurisdictional confusion. The provisions of the agreement relating to the future governance of this part of the Northwest Territories are poorly drafted and in some respects contradictory.
The effect of the act would be to create a new third order of aboriginal government with concurrent and paramount authority over the federal crown in relation to matters affecting the Tlicho. The act is clear in making the provisions of the agreement paramount over the act itself and over any regulations passed under the act.
Unfortunately the agreement itself is internally contradictory resulting in confusion regarding the concurrent and paramount authority of the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho government.
The agreement addresses these interjurisdictional issues in at least three places and prescribes three distinct paramount provisions. Articles 7.7.2 through 7.7.4 prescribe the following hierarchy of authority: one, federal legislation of general application; two, territorial legislation implementing Canadian international agreements; three, Tlicho laws; four, territorial legislation of general application; and finally, specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho.
In other words, Tlicho laws prevail over territorial laws and also over federal laws relating to the Tlicho. The federal government seems therefore to have rendered specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho subordinate to Tlicho laws.
Yet another example of the concept of paramountcy can be seen where it makes the settlement legislation paramount over the provisions of any other legislation or Tlicho law. Yet the definition of settlement legislation refers to both territorial legislation and federal legislation. In other words, this provision creates the following hierarchy: first, the agreement; second, the federal settlement legislation, which is presumably Bill C-14; third, territorial settlement legislation; and finally, other legislation or Tlicho laws. This is inconsistent with the concept outlined in articles 7.7.2 to 7.7.4 that were mentioned earlier.
Unfortunately, article 2.10.7 prescribes yet another legislative hierarchy which applies in the event of arbitration, namely: first, there are federal laws of overriding national importance; second, federal laws implementing international agreement obligations; third, other federal legislation; fourth, territorial legislation implementing international Canadian obligations; fifth, Tlicho laws; and finally, other territorial legislation.
Certainly the general scheme is that the powers of the Tlicho government to enact laws are concurrent with those of the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. What is problematic is that there seems to be multiple definitions of how to determine who has jurisdiction in the event of conflict.
Finally, the agreement also contains the following rather optimistic provision:

Nothing in the Agreement shall prejudice the devolution or transfer of responsibility or powers from the Government of Canada to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Assuming that similar self-government agreements are put in place across the rest of the Northwest Territories, it is hard to visualize what responsibilities or powers we have left for the territorial government. This clause also begs the question as to whether the Government of Canada has held back any of its powers with regard to the Tlicho people.
The fourth point is the application of the charter and the adoption of governance structures which are racially based and which arguably contradict the charter. The overall scheme created by the act, the agreement and the Tlicho constitution appears to have implications for the application of the charter to Tlicho citizens. Although both the agreement and the Tlicho constitution speak of consistency with the charter, it is noteworthy that the Tlicho constitution is quite clear in article 3.1 that the Tlicho constitution shall be the Tlicho nation's highest law.
Frankly, the entire legislation scheme is quite unclear as to the constitutional relationship between the Constitution Act of Canada, the charter and the Tlicho constitution. On its face, the agreement purports to adhere to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that article 2.15.1 provides that the charter applies to the Tlicho government.
However, the agreement itself outlines a racially based governance system. It creates a category of Canadians called Tlicho citizens and prescribes an electoral system where only Tlicho citizens may be elected as chief of the Tlicho community government. In addition, at least 50% of the elected councillors must be Tlicho citizens, so too the grand chief must be a Tlicho citizen. To be a Tlicho citizen one must be a registered status Indian. Thus, the agreement creates a racially segregated electoral system which is arguably contrary to the charter.
I would note that article 2.1.1 of the agreement may insulate the agreement from charter challenge by declaring the agreement to fall within section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Those who are Tlicho citizens therefore acquire a very distinct status in the north. They enjoy the electoral franchise noted above. They have all the rights and benefits of other Canadian citizens. They also maintain their identity as aboriginal people of Canada participating in and benefiting from any existing or future constitutional rights. They receive all status Indian benefits. They also maintain all their hunting, fishing and trapping rights under treaties south of the 60th parallel.
The Conservative Party of Canada believes that self-government must occur within the context of the Constitution of Canada. To ensure fairness and equality, a Conservative government would ensure that the principles of the charter would apply to aboriginal self-government.
The Conservative Party of Canada believes giving aboriginal governments the power to raise their own revenues will reduce the cycle of dependency and that the performance and accountability of aboriginal self-government is enhanced when those who receive services contribute to the cost of those services.
The settlement of all outstanding comprehensive claims must be pursued on the basis of a clear framework which balances the rights of aboriginal claimants with those of Canada. In particular, negotiated settlements must balance the economic and social needs of aboriginal Canadians with Canada's need for certainty and finality of terms. Self-government agreements must reflect Canada's need for both efficacy and practicality in institutional structure and constitutional harmony so as not to impede the overall governance of Canada.
Bill C-14 fails to meet these criteria fully and therefore, must be defeated.
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for a very thorough look at the proposed legislation. I have to agree with some of his points. It is incredibly commendable that outstanding comprehensive land claims are being addressed with the legislation. We certainly take no issue with the generosity toward aboriginal peoples. The agreement really speaks to a lot of their needs. I specifically also want to commend the power to raise their own revenues.
However, I am alarmed that the Tlicho constitution may trump our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Could my distinguished colleague speak to his party's desire to protect our beloved Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this matter?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, definitely there is concern that the Tlicho agreement contradicts our own Constitution and Charter of Rights. We need to ensure that the agreements we are negotiating reflect the desire of the Government of Canada and the people of Canada that all citizens are treated equally.
There is no doubt that it is important we get all these existing land claim settlements negotiated. We need to continue to urge the government to work toward that means. Unfortunately, the Tlicho agreement will be the template or the standard by which all future land claim settlements will be made. If there are flaws in this agreement, we have the chance to fix them now.
I would urge the government to make note of the concerns being raised by this side of the House, so we can put in place an agreement that will be comprehensive and applicable to all the future land claims currently on the table.
Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the member give his speech, I heard echoes of the debates that unfortunately we listened to during the Nisga'a. At that time, I was the chair of the committee. I not only listened to the debate in the House and the testimony, I also sat through the over 400 amendments, all of which were not on the treaty provisions itself, as was claimed a little earlier today, but on the enabling act just as it is here.
Someone questioned that earlier. I thought I would take this opportunity to pull the Hansard of Tuesday, October 19, 1999. The Hon. Robert Nault, who was the minister of Indian affairs and northern development at the time, said:

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to table a notice of a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the Nisga'a final agreement and the Nisga'a nation taxation agreement, and I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of this motion.

In other words, unlike what was said earlier in this House by the opposition party, Nisga'a was done in exactly the same way. I hope I stop hearing that argument. If they cannot read the Hansard , I have read it to them.
I would like to ask a question of this member. I honestly do not understand how his party can say that we need to speed up the treaty process, that we need to help economic development, that we need to get certainty and that many people live on lands that are on certain boundaries. We have not three months or one term of the lives of members in this Parliament or even two terms. We have over a decade of negotiation made in good faith with negotiators from the federal government and from the territorial government where the land is. They made a unanimous ratification in that parliament.
There are over 3,000 members of the Tlicho, with an 84.6% vote in favour and a 90 some odd per cent turnout at that election. Here our job procedurally is to ratify or not.
I can understand if people stand up and say that they do not want to ratify. However, do not say that these good things should happen, but this is not the time or that there has not been enough time taken or that good faith negotiation has not taken place, because that is not the case.
Let us be honest. Is this moving forward? Do we want to move this bill or will we just talk about it and slowly delay and move it on? Is this member serious about doing land claims in Canada?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I may not have as much experience in the House as the parliamentary secretary, but that still does not give her the right to go out and negotiate deals that are flawed. We need to make sure that the deals we put in place, ones that are going to be used as templates, have to be faultless to a T, and every i and t has to be dotted and crossed.
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join colleagues in the debate regarding this important legislation. I will begin by telling members how pleased I was with the appointment the Prime Minister made this summer of the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I have had a chance to work with the minister in his capacity as a member of Parliament and before his election to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister's choice of Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is an exceptional one. He will bring a great deal of energy to the portfolio. He is a man of very considerable judgment and experience and a sociologist by profession. Certainly, the academic and personal experience he has had in public service in our shared province of New Brunswick and in the Government of Canada will make him one of the most effective ministers in the history of the department.
I support the bill and the historic agreement contained at the heart of the proposed legislation. Some issues were raised by hon. members opposite concerning the bill. I think it would be appropriate and useful to address some of the specific issues.
Allow me to put the Tlicho agreement into context, and there has been a great deal of discussion on both sides of the House. It would be very useful for colleagues to understand the context in which the legislation operates.
The Tlicho agreement is designed to operate within the constitution of Canada. Subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights. There are notable Supreme Court rulings, the Sparrow decision for example, that clarify the nature of aboriginal rights. However, the full scope and extent of these aboriginal rights has not yet been determined in law.
The courts have repeatedly encouraged the resolution of aboriginal issues through negotiation rather than litigation. As we know, litigation is a more costly, adversarial and certainly time consuming way to address these difficult but important aboriginal issues. The Tlicho agreement is a product of negotiation and is designed to achieve the constitutional objectives as set out in subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act.
To use a phrase that we have heard before in this chamber on this specific issue, let me emphasize that this agreement exists within the four square corners of our Constitution. In addition to ensuring this constitutional framework is not altered, we have also guaranteed that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, itself a constitutional document, remains untouched. It is a fundamental principle of the government. I might remind Canadians that it is the Liberal Party and this government that have defended the Charter of Rights. In fact in 1982 the Liberal government, led by the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, enacted the Charter of Rights of which we are all so proud.
It is a fundamental principle for us that all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, enjoy the rights and freedoms that the charter guarantees.
Article 2.15.1 of the Tlicho agreement provides that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Tlicho government in respect to all matters within its authority. In addition, article 7.1.2b states that the Tlicho constitution shall provide for protections for Tlicho citizens by ways of rights and freedoms no less than those set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Let there be no confusion. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitutional document, applies. As a result the rights of women, for example, are and remain protected. In fact the agreement supports gender equality by giving all Tlicho citizens, including women, a larger voice in governance. Tlicho citizens, regardless of gender, will also have equal access to the benefits provided under this historic agreement.
Women play a strong role in Tlicho communities. In fact the majority of Tlicho people in post-secondary education are women, women who will eventually play strong roles in the communities and governmental structures that are brought into effect by virtue of this agreement.
Members opposite were also enquiring about matrimonial real property. The issue I know is particularly critical on reserves. The Tlicho people, however, will live in public communities. These communities will be created by territorial legislation and territorial laws will apply, including those respecting matrimonial real property.
The relationship of laws is a very important element of this agreement and is the subject of some debate by members of the House. Let me assure all members that this relationship is very clearly laid out in the agreement and in the corresponding legislation.
The legislative powers of the Tlicho government will be exercised concurrently with law-making powers of Canada and the territorial government itself. That means, all laws will continue to apply. If it happens that there is a conflict between a federal law of general application and a Tlicho law, the federal law will prevail. It is clear. There are no exceptions to this fundamental principle of the conflict of laws. In the case of a conflict between a Tlicho law and a territorial law, the Tlicho law will prevail, except in the case of international legal obligations. In this case the territorial law will prevail.
Let me very clear. Canada's ability to negotiate and implement international treaties is not fettered by this legislation or by this agreement. In fact the agreement contains provisions to clarify that precise point. The agreement provides assurance that the Tlicho government will exercise its powers in ways compatible with Canada's international legal obligations. If the Tlicho government passes a law or takes an action that prevents Canada from performing an international legal obligation, article 7.13 of the Tlicho agreement requires the Tlicho government itself to remedy its law or action to enable Canada to perform its international legal obligation.
There may be a future international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho people. The agreement has a provision for that as well. Canada is required by article 7.13.2 to provide an opportunity for the Tlicho government to make its views known either separately or through a forum. This does not mean that Canada cannot enter into an international treaty. It means it must discuss the matter with the Tlicho government.
We have also heard issues raised by members concerning the perceived lack of finality in this agreement. In fact one of the major benefits of Bill C-14 is that Canada receives certainty and clarity about legal rights of ownership and management within a significant portion of the Northwest Territories.
This will create a much more predictable and secure decision making environment, with the potential to attract investment and economic growth. The Tlicho people will have fee simple title to 19% of their traditional territory. Canada will have finality from the Tlicho concerning the remainder.
The members opposite have also raised the issue of self-government rights. Canada believes that all Tlicho self-government rights have been addressed in this agreement. However, should a future court of competent jurisdiction determine that there is an additional Tlicho self-government right, the agreement establishes clearly a negotiation process by which those rights can also be addressed.
My colleagues referred to chapter 27.6.1 specifically on this point. I would recommend that they read this section carefully, as it very clearly deals with one specific issue. Chapter 27.6.1 allows for equitable treatment among all aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories concerning tax power or exemptions.
This is to ensure that when future land claims and self-government agreements are negotiated in the Northwest Territories, the taxation regime of the Tlicho can be altered, so that it is compatible and equitable with the others. I think my colleagues will be pleased with this provision as it ensures that all taxation regimes in the Northwest Territories will be equal and compatible.
There are many other benefits for Canada as well. This agreement will provide the Tlicho people with the opportunity to enhance their participation in the economy of the region and in the territory as a whole. They will for example have the tools to become more self-reliant. The land, resources and financial benefits they receive from this agreement will put them in a better position to undertake new business initiatives and partnerships with industry.
The Tlicho agreement targets the objective of closing the economic and social gap that exists between aboriginal Canadians and Canadians in general. As stated at the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable on April 19, 2004, it provides new opportunities for the Tlicho to enhance its self-sufficiency.
In my constituency of Beauséjour I have a number of first nation communities. Like the Tlicho people they are trying to develop their own economies. They are becoming more self-sufficient. They are developing an entrepreneurial class of aboriginal Canadians who seek to participate fully in the economic promise of our country.
I happen to have the largest aboriginal community in New Brunswick, Elsipogtog, which is adjacent to a francophone community called Richibucto. One of the proudest moments I have had as a member of Parliament was to go to a little ceremony in this French-speaking francophone village where the mayor and the municipal council decided that in addition to having their municipal signs welcoming people in English and French they would also add the Mi'kmaw words to their signs and welcome the Mi'kmaw people who live a few kilometres away in Elsipogtog. It is a small example, but a very worthy one, of some of the healing and the coming together that has taken place between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.
I happen to have the largest fishing harbour in my constituency, also in the village of Richibucto. It is right downtown, on Main Street in fact, and it is the biggest fishing harbour in my community, the largest in terms of active fishermen. The elected head of the harbour authority is a Mi'kmaw gentleman from the community of Elsipogtog.
He has been elected by aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishers to head their local port authority. It is a great example of aboriginal fishers and non-aboriginal fishers working together to develop a new harbour and to cooperate in some of the economic opportunities that the fishery will afford them in the years to come.
There are success stories in the country in terms of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people working together. I feel very fortunate in my constituency in New Brunswick to have witnessed first hand many of these success stories. The Tlicho agreement and Bill C-14 is a very important step in bringing together many of these values for which we have fought.
To conclude, if my colleagues opposite read Bill C-14 carefully and thoroughly, they will understand that this agreement not only holds enormous benefits for the Tlicho people and for the Northwest Territories, but indeed, it offers great benefits to all Canadians as well.
James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that the member opposite had a lot of substance in that speech to which I listened very carefully.
He did address the issue of the Government of Canada signing an international agreement. He said, correctly, that if it were to affect the right of the Tlicho First Nation government or a citizen, consultation would take place. Could he identify, first of all, what characteristics there would be in terms of affecting a right? It is fairly broad language. I wonder if he could make it a little more specific for members.
Second, the hon. member was talking about jurisdiction. I thought I heard him say that it would be the agreement that would take precedence if there was a jurisdiction problem between the territory and the Tlicho First Nation. I do not know if I am correct on that. I asked a question earlier to another member in regard to a disagreement between federal legislation, territorial legislation and this agreement of the Tlicho First Nation.
My understanding was that it would be the federal legislation that would take precedence in an area of disagreement, for instance, over something in the natural resource area like the Mackenzie pipeline that is not coming through this area, but through another area. In a situation where there is a disagreement between jurisdictions, say, federal or territorial legislation and this agreement, which jurisdiction takes precedence? Can the member answer that? It would be very helpful.
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton—Leduc for his question. I know he has a very broad interest in this subject matter and has contributed constructively to many issues in the House of Commons.
He referred to two particular issues. First, is the issue of international treaties and the authority of the Tlicho government to enter into international agreements and the role of the Government of Canada in terms of entering into international agreements that may affect the Tlicho government. As I said, the Government of Canada retains the sole jurisdiction to enter into international agreements even though some of these agreements might affect the Tlicho government or a Tlicho citizen or the Tlicho First Nation.
Although the agreement and this legislation would create a Tlicho government, which would have law-making powers, the Tlicho government would not have the authority to enter into any international agreements. The law-making powers are specifically outlined in chapter 7. It also contains the limitations and conditions concerning these powers, and specifically, the powers concerning international legal obligations.
It is obvious, and I said this in my comments, and the member for Edmonton--Leduc correctly noted, that in a circumstance where the Government of Canada was entering into an international legal obligation, a treaty, that would have an impact on the Tlicho people or the Tlicho government, there would be a process of discussion and a process of consultation.
That is clearly enunciated and has been a very clear position of the government. However, at no time would the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada to enter into a binding legal obligation be fettered by this legislation or by subsequent legislation enacted by a territorial government, for example, the Tlicho government.
The member also raised the issue of conflict of laws. In a federation like Canada there can be a conflict of laws between different legitimate jurisdictions at any given time. As I said in my comments, there should be no doubt that federal legislation will always be paramount in the case of a conflict. If there is a duly determined conflict of law between something enacted by the Tlicho government and the Government of Canada, the paramountcy of federal legislation, legislation passed in this Parliament, will always be paramount.
As I said, this is an evolving process. In the case of territorial legislation and legislation or regulations passed by the Tlicho authority, we give effect to the Tlicho authority in this legislation. That has been very clear.
We have to be careful not to leave Canadians with the impression that this legislation evacuates the right of the Parliament of Canada to legislate. That is simply not the case.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague on his very fine speech. He hit on a number of issues. His own personal experience will attest to the responses that he gave.
The questions that were brought up by colleagues from the other side are ones that many Canadians are concerned about. My hon. colleague has answered some of those. However, I want him to put this bill in the context of a move from the past to the future, where aboriginal members and communities were restricted from looking forward in order to take hold of their livelihoods and their future, and to capitalize on the assets that they had around them.
I ask my hon. friend, how does the bill enable aboriginal communities to move forward, take control over their assets, live in an environment where their leadership is accountable to the members within the group, and where they can live and thrive not as a separate entity within our country but as an entity working with other communities, not only locally but throughout the country? Could he describe the bill in the context of how it enables a group to work with other Canadians, not separately but together for our mutual benefit?
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, for his question. He too represents a constituency in western Canada, in British Columbia, and has spoken passionately and convincingly about the need for the government to reconcile its relationship with first nations and to allow first nations, as he himself has said, to take more control of their own destiny, their own future, their own institutions, their own economic development, and in many cases their own resources.
The Tlicho agreement is an agreement and it is important that we keep emphasizing that. It has been arrived at through a negotiation process. This agreement, brought into effect by the legislation before the House today, is a very important step to bring this first nation into its own. It will give it the control of its own institutions and the ability to decide its own future in a way that will be compatible and positive for all Canadians.
My own personal experience in New Brunswick has taught me that there is a great deal of desire on the part of first nations to become economically self-sufficient, to educate their people, and to advance the rights of women in their communities.
We have a long way to go to make aboriginal people full participants in Canadian society. The Prime Minister, the government and the minister have made it very clear that the Tlicho agreement is a wonderful step forward. We hope that it will be followed by other first nations who seek to take control of their own institutions and to participate fully in the governing of their communities.
When I think of the first nations people whom I represent, they would view this Tlicho agreement as a model and something that I hope many other first nations, through a negotiated process with the Government of Canada, can also strive to attain.
The promise is limitless. If we look at the natural resources, the human resources, the spirit, and the culture of these first nations people, the Government of Canada has shown a great deal of leadership with respect to this legislation and this agreement in ensuring that their aspirations and hopes were also achieved.
Guy Lauzon: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to address Bill C-14, an unprecedented bill that would give force to both a land claim settlement and a land claim agreement to the Tlicho people of Canada's western Arctic.
I would like to begin my remarks on the bill by thanking and congratulating my colleague from Calgary Centre-North for the excellent work he has done in analyzing the bill and the agreements with which it deals. The bill is relatively short, but it gives force to the very complex provisions set out in a 208 page settlement agreement and a shorter tax agreement.
I know for a fact that the member for Calgary Centre-North has read and analyzed those agreements in their entirety. I also know that in conducting his analysis, the member for Calgary Centre-North brings a great deal of expertise to bear. He is certainly Parliament's foremost expert on aboriginal land claims. In fact he has negotiated and mediated many land claim settlements over many years and has lectured extensively on the need for justice in the resolution of native land claims.
It will be tough for me to offer much analysis of the bill that my hon. colleague from Calgary Centre-North has not already provided in admirable detail. I think I can best contribute to this debate by framing it in terms of key principles.
First, I want to affirm the dedication of the Conservative Party to the goal of establishing a workable, respectful and durable partnership with Canada's aboriginal people. The riding I represent, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, includes the lion's share of the Akwesasne region, which is home to about 13,000 Mohawk people. That does not make me an expert on land claims by any stretch of the imagination, but it does give me a strong appreciation of the importance of establishing trust and certainty in the relationship between the various levels of government and the aboriginal people of Canada.
The Conservative Party is committed to speeding up the settlement of the unacceptable number of outstanding comprehensive land claims in the country, to say nothing of the backlog of specific claims, which is even worse. Moreover, it is the party's policy that self-government must be within the context of the Constitution and that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must apply to all Canadians and their governments, including an aboriginal government.
I am not opposed to the objectives and purpose of the agreement. I am however opposed to its final form, which is simply poorly thought out and poorly drafted.
The agreement before us today simply has not been adequately considered from the perspective of Canada's interests. I do not see anything in it for Canada, and obviously any agreement between a first nation and the Government of Canada should strike a balance between the interests of both parties.
The agreement fails to balance the economic and social needs of the Tlicho people on the one hand with Canada's need for certainty, finality of terms and constitutional workability on the other. The whole purpose of negotiating an agreement like this from Canada's standpoint is to put an end to squabbling and litigation and to establish a stable partnership with our aboriginal citizens. This agreement deliberately fails to do so.
It actually says in the agreement that the Tlicho people are entitled to anything that is granted to any other aboriginal group in future land claims agreements in the Northwest Territories. That means the nitpicking and legal actions could resume in the future and nothing in the agreement is final. The relationship between the Tlicho people and the Government of Canada is not cemented by this agreement, so the agreement fails in its main purpose.
The agreement also fails to establish which government's laws are paramount when jurisdictions overlap. This is the second key objective that the agreement simply fails to achieve. The agreement contradicts itself in three different sections dealing with the authority of the Government of Canada, the government of the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho government.
The general idea of the agreement is that the Tlicho government has the power to enact laws concurrently with both the federal and territorial governments, but if conflicts occur there seems to be several different ways to determine which laws are paramount. Not only is the agreement not final, it is not workable either. Even if the agreement is not thrown into dispute because another agreement gives another aboriginal group something not given to the Tlicho people, it may well be torn apart by jurisdictional confusion and bickering.
The third thing about the agreement that makes me shake my head is the way it undermines Canada's federal authority and international autonomy. The agreement explicitly says it does not limit the authority of the Tlicho people to enter into international agreements, which implies that the Tlicho government can enter into international agreements.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry will have 14 minutes and 50 seconds remaining when debate resumes.
It being 2:30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday, November 1, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)